Archive for Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Poor comparison

July 11, 2006


To the editor:

"'Christian' activists blowing up abortion clinics," as the Washington Post's Jim Hoagland wrote on July 3, obviously proves the danger to our civilization and the moral equivalence of Christian and Islamic fundamentalist "intolerance."


First, consider the past 10 years of "blowing up abortion clinics." During that time (according to the pro-abortion National Abortion Federation) there have been nine clinic bombings, with one bombing-connected murder. Two of those bombings were done by one man, now in prison. No bombings during the past four years. While there were additional arsons and arson attempts, most were after hours and caused minimal damage. The Christian fundamentalist response? Countless individuals, pastors and organizations condemned all these criminal acts.

During the past 10 years, Muslim fascists murdered 16 Americans on the USS Cole, 3,000 on Sept. 11, and countless others in places like the United Kingdom, Spain, Indonesia and the Philippines. Hundreds of thousands of fundamentalist Muslims responded by dancing in the streets every time "infidels" were murdered. There was almost a complete failure of the leaders of Islam to condemn this lawlessness and tyranny through fear.

Taken at his word, Hoagland can't tell the difference between Christian fundamentalism and the tyrannical Islamo-fascists who would destroy our liberties and our civilization. I wonder why. Perhaps his own intolerance blinds his judgment.

David Upchurch,



Kelly Powell 11 years, 8 months ago

So the differance is a matter of degree? I'm sure some muslim clerics condemmed those actions....just as I am sure some christians celebrated the clinic bombings.......If religion is the guiding reason why an illegal act happens, you are bound to have comparrison....suck it up and forgive those who trespass against you(ever heard that before?)

paladin 11 years, 8 months ago

We are in the midst of a protracted, soon possibly not, Holy War, not unlike those past. But, unlike those past, contact and transport are immediate. We are not Holy enough to possibly be victorious. Nor, do we have the courage for it. Get your affairs in order, as if it really matters.

temperance 11 years, 8 months ago

I think the tone of the first post was "Your wacky fundamentalists are A LOT more crazy than OUR wacky fundamentalists!" I think the poster compares the fundamentalist death tolls accurately, but it's naÃive to attribute Islamic terrorism purely to ideology. I think it's impossible to talk about Islamic terrorism without considering ethnic cleavages and geo-political conflict.

Here's an appropriate thought experiment: If the Randall Terrys and Pat Robertsons of our country tripled or quadrupled their following and were able to mount a serious campaign for a theocratic state, would fundamentalist violence in the U.S. increase?

Here's something else to consider: "Left Behind Games" is set to release a video game, based on the popular fiction series, where players attempt to convert or kill New Yorkers in a post-apocalyptic frenzy. The warrior-players shout "Praise the Lord!" as they kill nonbelievers with modern military weapons. I'm not making this up:

So let's revisit the question: ARE our wacky fundamentalists really that much more crazy than THEIR wacky fundamentalists?

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

Wow. Since so many of his relatives migrated north, con-man has become even more . . . lizard-like.

Abortion is a constitutional right. It is, and will remain so. Those who act against it are un-American traitor dogs who do not observe their oath to defend the Constitution.

The religious right is the fangs of the snake that is coiled at our feet, filling us with their poison. They are arch-hypocrites, holding hands and crying crococile tears in their churches for "the murdered unborn," when what they really regret is that aborted fetuses can't grow up to work for them, at or below minimum wage.

They may sniff at acts of lawlessness against clinics and providers, but they agree with them in their black, vile hearts.

Conservatives are a curse on the country - past, present, and the future. They refuse to accept that societies evolve and move on, leaving them behind.

yourworstnightmare 11 years, 8 months ago

The fact remains that there are christian fundamentalists in this country who terrorize abortion clinics, doctors, and patients, often (10 times is too often) resorting to bombing and violence. Untold numbers also support their actions.

These christiofascists exist in this country and are for now being kept in check by moderating forces in our society that are absent in many muslim societies (e.g. secular institutions, separation of church and state, balance of powers, individual rights, womens rights, etc.).

Christian terrorists (christiofascists) exist in this country and have perpetrated acts of terror not unlike islamofascists.

tolawdjk 11 years, 8 months ago

Cman's environmental tradeoffs consists of either a) requiring a power plant to control its pollution or b) not.

Because, you know, it costs money. And stuff.

Immediategratificationconservativeman is just too long a handle to log in every day with.

fletch 11 years, 8 months ago

Well as long as your brand of fundamentalism kills less people, I guess we're good.

temperance 11 years, 8 months ago

fletch -- nice one!

conservativeman is clearly trolling; he dragging in off-topic (or barely topical) comparisons to derail the conversation.

Don't feed the trolls.

paladin 11 years, 8 months ago

We will hopefully unite, pool our weapons, and fight back. This is a call to arms. To anyone who believes enough and is willing.

temperance 11 years, 8 months ago

Rightthinker You revealed your true self in that drive-by comment about gays, blacks & feminists. Do you think the term "Dummiecrat" is a useful term for adult political conversation? Do you think your argument is made more persuasive that way? And do you realize how bizarre it is that you criticize labeling and segmentation in the same breath that you label ("Dummiecrat") and segment (". . . 25% of their base")?

Reread the letter and try to stay on-topic.

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago

No question about it.

Time to call Boog the Dada and request an ordinance banning belief.

You thought fireworks and cigs are dangerous. Trivial compared to belief.

Our signs should read: BAN BELIEF NOW!

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

The liar Arminianus:

newagehippiechick answered you well enough, but let me add that it's my fervent belief that every liberal Democrat in the country should be required to mentor up to three, possibly as many as seven, ignorant conservative troglodytes about the dangers of neo-fascism.

Which is why I do my best to instruct you on this site.

temperance 11 years, 8 months ago

Hippychick: You're right. All they have left are these wedge issues to distract us from our miserable failure in Iraq, the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the $296 billion dollar federal deficit. They can't make coherent arguments for the failed policies they've blindly supported for the last five years, so they resort to childish taunts. I think we can expect more of the same in the lead up to the November elections.
[good to see you here hippychick!]

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago

Ban fervent belief. Ban requiring anybody to do anything other than take care of themselves.

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago

And how many black africans and south americans and southern asians have died since DDT was banned.

Estimates are about 50 million souls due to malaria.

Love those raptors though.

Don't you Rachel, hippie, xeno?

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago

Referring to conservative republicans, hippichick said:

"and they are in bed with fiction religions that defy the very promise of peace and justice that real Christians hope and pray for.

All that is left to them is hatefulness, winning by cheating, and the continual methodical division of classes by wealth and political power."

Fiction religions are defined as religions of a ficticious nature? Sounds redundant to me. Environmentalism, evolution, liberalism sound like religions to you? They do to me.

Hate? So your telling me that the liberal side of the arguments on this site and many others @LJW don't contain hate from the left? Class division? Thy name is Marx. To this anarchist, you both sound the same.

I think that the conservatives are afraid to take on your challenge: " faith-based office"? I have perused the posts today and can't find the quote. What office is being referred to here?

Clarify please.

paladin 11 years, 8 months ago

The principle of unity of command:

Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:

* He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
* He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
* He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
* He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
* He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

But when the army is restless and distrustful, trouble is sure to come from the other feudal princes. This is simply bringing anarchy into the army, and flinging victory away. [3:16-17]

It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two. If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him. Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force. [3:8-10]

Sun Tzu's Art of War

Strontius 11 years, 8 months ago

How does one use the term "Libtards" in a mature environment? There's a difference between poking humor at something and outright insulting them with low calibur insults.

Unless of course one decides to re-define the word "mature", which would fit the conservative pattern. After all, why stop with science, moral, ethical, and evil? It's these re-definitions that allow them to brutally support the legalized murder of more than 100,000 people in another country without feeling resentment when they ask thier sky god to forgive their sins at night.

But I digress. At least feeding the trolls will only encourage them to remind the rest of us why we don't vote Republican.

temperance 11 years, 8 months ago

Hippychick: Everyone here seems to be dodging your challenge about the fiduciary recipients of federally-sponsored faith-based programs. Maybe it's because you're totally correct. According to my quick research, feds gave faith-based groups more than $2 billion in 2004 (over 10% of total competitive federal funding from agencies like the Dept. of Justice and the dept. of Housing and Urban Development). The 2006 budget earmarks $193 million for abstinence-only education programs an increase of more than 50% since 2004.
See, for instance, the links & analysis at:

Does anyone else find it disturbing that the "Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives" is under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security? Maybe Michael Chertoff should have weightier concerns than directing "faith-based and community initiatives?" Like coordinating federal agencies so that they can catch terrorists? Finding Osama Bin Laden? Something like that? Oh, by the way, according to the handy little "Threat Advisory" at the top of their page, we're currently at stage "yellow." Maybe he should work on bringing the threat level down to "blue."

In the old days, the term "conservative" might have been described by the verb "to conserve" (as in "Conservative Teddy Roosevelt wants to preserve our national resources" ). Now, I guess "conservative" means "spend billions of dollars on stuff that doesn't work and make our grandchildren pay for it later."

rightthinker: YOU are the authentic face of the Republican base, so keep posting those funny names! You're a wonderful ambassador of contemporary conservative thought.

Strontius 11 years, 8 months ago


Maybe you would be more comfortable living in a country which is closer to your own personal political views. I would suggest Mexico, but they have a lot of leftists too.

In fact, their is no first world democracy that even approaches the right-wing views you share. What does that tell you about yourself and your views?

If you want to live in a country that caters to the political right, I suggest either an African dictatorship or somewhere in the Middle East. Those are the last true bastions of right-wing political control.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

The liar Arminianus:

As usual, you read only what you want to read and ignore the essence of things.

Societies evolve and move away from norms and morals that outlive their time. Abortion is the accepted norm of a society that has evolved away from the strictures of, for example, the Eisenhower era.

Abolitionists were correct in opposing slavery, in part because their society had not evolved as it should have, and they were prescient in determining to move the process along.

No doubt this is all over your head, but you asked, and it is my responsibility to the less fortunate to respond.

paladin 11 years, 8 months ago

We will not be awarded peace by being subservient. By being submissive and getting down on our knees. There is a time when one must stand up and fight and the time is now. Pay attention! Watch the news! We are in serious trouble. Get together!

Christine Pennewell Davis 11 years, 8 months ago

a terrorist is a terrorist no matter the cause no inbetween on this one.

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago

Ok, logicsound:

I worked with many muslims for a period of 11 years. They are my collegues and friends, bosses, employees.

I find Islam to be a culture of kind, gentle and modest people. They really have but one problem, but it is a big one.

Islam is a religion which demands a total commitment to the teachings of the Prophet. Submission to the law given in the Koran is the most powerful influence on the lives of the faithful.

The problem is that tyrants can easlily usurp the power of the prophet by directing the masses thru religion. Since Islam doesn't value freedom or individual rights, the tyrant can take charge of a whole bunch of people easily.

You said: "I personally feel that the best way to avoid future terrorist attacks is to ask for the help of Muslims rather than demonizing the lot of them"

No l-sound, you must ask for help from the tyrants. The people follow the tyrants. It isn't the fault of the people of Islam, except that they allow the tyrants to be in charge.

The people won't rebel against the tyrants. The people won't create their own government based on democratic principles because nothing about Islam is democratic. It is a foreign concept to Islam.

So, you want to negotiate with the tyrants. Well, start with guys like the King of Saudi Arabia. Check, did that. Then we'll go to guys like Saddam. Check, tried that. Now, let's negotiate with bin-Laden and al-Zarkawi. Can't do it. So we kill them. That's really all we can do.

You can't negotiate with the Islamic people, L-sound. They have no power, no say in the ruling of their lives. It's all about the word of the prophet, and that word is to be obeyed in a way that is far more rigorous than the word of jesus.

The Koran contains no Augustinian view of the city of man and the city of god. There is no separation in Islam.

So what should be a simple and pleasant negotiation between rational people in the west and middle east becomes a donnybrook between borish westerners, and utterly obstinate theocratic muslim tyrants. Toss in some serious criminals on each side and you have what we have now.

The sad truth is that those kind and modest Muslims walk around with "kick me hard" signs pinned to their backs. Rank and file muslims just sink lower and lower. Unable to assert their own individual identity in the world.

ksmoderate 11 years, 8 months ago

Gee. If you take out each occurrence of the word "Muslim" and replace it with "Christian," is there really much of a change?

Unless, like devo says, Christians aren't expected to be "rigorous" in following the teachings of Jesus.

anonimiss 11 years, 8 months ago

The one thing you guys are missing is that Christians, for the most part, don't have to walk around watching their backs if they choose to disagree. European and American Christians are in no danger for wearing soccer shorts, no danger for being protestant, no danger for hanging out with a woman, no danger for educating yourself. Muslims are. Radicalism breeds more radicalism, as the weak will choose to be controlled instead of risking their life for a belief. Until we get where we are today. Some Christians may be weak, but but they are not under the life-threatening pressure to believe a certain belief that many Muslims are.

anonimiss 11 years, 8 months ago

If the Fred Phelps of the world were more powerful, had a following, and were killing and blowing people up for not following them, then there sure would be alot more radical Christians. That is the main difference. Long, long ago somebody killed somebody else in the Middle East for not following the correct religion. People changed their beliefs in order to not be killed. Radical soon became normal, and terrorism became the new radical.

anonimiss 11 years, 8 months ago

Radical Christians and radical Muslims aren't really a whole lot different. Radical Muslims have had a little longer to develop, and hence become more radical. The followers had a choice to make, and the weak that chose life bred, the strong that stood up were killed.

After all, the God of Islam is the God of Judeaism and Christianity. Islam claimed Jesus worked miracles, and Jesus was a Jew.

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago

ksmoderate, no not much of a change except:

The bible has a passage that says render unto caesar that which is caesars, render unto god that which is gods.

St Augustine was ,I believe, the first catholic to form a sect within the church (400 AD?). It was based on this statement from jesus.

It is just one small statement. Its implications are huge. Their is hope for christians. There is a place on this earth for man. It isn't just all god. Are there tyrannical christians out there who forget that there is a world of man too? Phelpstaylor types? Sure.

It isn't that christians aren't expected to follow the word from jesus any less rigorously. It is entirely that the word of jesus is much less proscriptive.

The Prophet lays down everything in the Koran. I mean everything. How to do everything from shake hands to wipe yer butt. What, when, and how to eat. Business, treating guests, everything.

The new testament is much more general in its instructions. The free will of man is acknowledged.

The Koran is the old testament taken to the extremis.

anonimiss 11 years, 8 months ago

Let's just say for right now that Islam and Christianity are exactly the same except for different names. If we all move to Iraq, then withing days a few of us will get killed for wearing shorts. A few more for going to the wrong church. A few more for hanging out with women. The rest of us are forced to make a choice: do we convert to this radical Islam to save our lives, or do we stand up for what we believe? Those that convert to radicalism live, teaching their children. Those that don't die. Islam, regardless of its nature, will forever be radical because of events in its past. Christianity, barring a similar event, will stay moderate, as those who disagree will also live on.

paladin 11 years, 8 months ago

Except that They want to and are determined to KILL you. Do you have any defense?

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago

Careful, folks arguing biblical passages is an endless endeavor.

I invoked the caesar/god dichotomy because the Augustinians were founded on the concept of a separate city of god and man. The Augustinians were key to preserving christianity throughout the dark and middle ages

Thus, christianity traces much of its heritage to the documents preserved by the followers of Augustine.

Ok, the popes of the enlightenment sure as heck didn't adhere to this separation between man and god, but it still lingered, and still exists today.

Islam has no such heritage. In Islam, the law is the law. It is the law of allah as told by the prophet.

Sin? Well repent, join Islam, or become an infidel.

And to the Phelpstaylor analogs in Islam:


Still wanna negotiate?

drewdun 11 years, 8 months ago

rightthinker, conman, and pilgrim: you guys are SO SMART! Teach me how to think critically about the evil, far-left Islamoliberaloterrorohomosatanoevilocommunofascist Dummiecrats as you pillars of mainstream wisdom do!!!

In fact, I bet if you three put your heads together (in a totally non-gay way, of course) you could establish the finest institute of higher education in the state, to truly open all of the non-believer's eyes, so they might see the Dummiecrats for what they really are!!!

Damn it! I forgot Kansas already has such a bastion of right-mindedness, dominated by the uber-cultured and -intelligent like Arminius & Co: Kansas State University! Maybe the administration there will see your gifts and award all of you honorary chairs for your brilliance and contributions to enlightened political discourse. I'll see you Super American Patriots there - my transfer form is in the mail!

anonimiss 11 years, 8 months ago

It seems to me that there are two types of Islam: regular and radical. Regular Islam is now only confined to the Americas and Europe, while radical Islam is spreading out from the Middle East. Each time the radicals behead, blow up, shoot, hang, or torture somebody, opposition grows weaker and the radical leaders grow stronger. That's why we now have Al Qaeda leading Somalia, had the Taliban in Afghanistan, have jokes like Al-Jazeera. And these new powers lie to gain more power, making those under them even more radical because of their unfortunate ignorance. Islam in the Americas and Europe is no different than any other religion. Women can wear clothes, men have one wife, killing is outlawed, and people of other religions are equals. Realistically, the two are related only by name and by a book. Same with Fred Phelp's group. They're not Christian by any Christian standards. They call themselves Christians and quote from the Bible. And you can bet your @$$ that Phelpsy would kill gays if he knew he wouldn't be held responsible for it.

paladin 11 years, 8 months ago

They are going to kill us, and you are going to let it happen. There is nothing I can say or do to prevent your mindlessness from destroying you. Protect your own. Goodbye.

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago


The people I worked with were not of the Phelpstaylor wing of the Islamic culture.

They were regular mohammeds. El-Reyes was from Alexandria. He said when he was a kid he and his buddies would go down the street and yell hammed, then duck into a doorway. Window shades and doors all over the neighborhood would open up because half the males were named mohammed. Fun kid joke? Or racist?

I dunno, HGA. My buddies and I had a good time. That's all I know. Relax wouldya?

Underneath, I negotiated with these guys all the time. They never called me an infidel, and I never did any more than ask them about their religion. I asked them to share their culture me a little bit. I 'splained stuff to them too.

One time I had a copy of a newsletter from Fr Wempe from KCK. He and I did a neighborhood thing together. His newsletter was called "Shalom House". Abdul-Razek noticed it and said: "Shalom, that's an Arabic word."

We had a long talk about the history of jews arabs, and the middle east. His father was the Eqyptian ambassador to Nigeria. He and I became pretty close.

So where do I get my negative impressions of some muslims? Same place I get negative impressions of people no matter where they come from.

I find that all cultures have horses rearends. It ain't racist. It crosses all the cultures that I've seen .

So, I observed that muslims are more apt to submit to authority. More than me. More than most Americans.

Is that racists, culturist? Somethin' about Islam is different, HGA. Based on the way the individuals that I new (their personality) and the countries that they come from (kingdoms, emmirates, military strongmen, etc.) I concluded that their problem is that Islam doesn't promote a sense of independent thought. Freedom is just not part of the culture.

It is an opinion, HGA. I am not forcing it on you. I make no policy decisions based upon my opinion.

Pulling the race card is a sure way to kill a converstion, HGA.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

Some interesting posts, but quite a lot of drivel.

Jesus is dead. Has been for two thousand years. He wasn't god when he was alive, not ever. And he's never coming back.

Christianity was a splendid religion at one time; unfortunately, like everything that ages, its time has past. We have evolved past needing Christianity. We have the law, television, Hollywood, public schools. We don't need Christianity anymore. Any of you with a keen sense of reality will see that what I say is true.

Since the Mongol incursion at the end of the 13th century, Islam has been a sick joke on humanity. Prior to that it was a vibrant ideology, responsible for creating one of the most advanced, civilized societies on the planet. Unfotunately, after Hulagu finished with Muslims, there wasn't enough left to resist the mullahs and imams, who took over and made Islam the pathetic theocracy it became and still is today. Theocrats blunted and reduced Islam so that it returned to its original function as serving as a bridge for people making a transition from nomadic, individualistic lifestyles to more settled societies in towns and cities, where they had to rein in their individualities and conform to society.

Too bad about Islam. They are the enemy now, to the death. We need to divest ourselves of any remnant of Christianity, for the law of the jungle is the only one that will prevail in the conflicts of West vs. East. Kill or be killed. We have to kill them the firstest, with the mostest.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

Is it true? The slime-liar Arminianus is a product of KANSAS STATE?!!! PURPLE-PUKE?!!!

Say it isn't so, liar-boy.

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago


In your experience, how successful have you been when challenging a person's faith. I'm not talking about belief, like say, in logic.

No, I'm talking about faith. Blind faith. This is what you call for in your post. Stuff like jesus is dead and never was god, etc.

Is this a statement of a rational person trying to sway the opinions of others, or is it a mad cry from a zealot.

Where are ya guys: time for some Howard Dean yells , no?

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago


Well, if you believe that natural physical laws are inviolate throughout the universe (Spinoza) and that human beings are unable to abrogate natural physical laws, then any rational, reasonable person would have to question the legitimacy of anyone who says they are god, and can prove it by walking on water, turning water into wine, raising the dead, casting out demons, etc.

I suggest any young person troubled by questions of faith should study ancient Jewish civilization that existed in Judea and Israel during the life of Jesus. They should study laws, customs, government, religion, family life, agriculture, and the history of the people and regions.

Then try to place Jesus in the normal framework of his time and circumstances. Jesus was illegitimate - the Christian bible says so - and people need to understand what the stigma of illegitimacy meant, and the myriad effects and bruises it left on the young Jesus as he grew up in his small village, hounded into isolation by other children, ignored by girls to the degree that he was not even able to obey the law that he marry because local girls all scorned him.

This is just one example of the work that needs to be done to see Jesus clearly. I've done it, and have written extensively about it for an on-line magazine.

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago

First, to answer the Einstein equivalence principle (unchanging throughout the universe) read this:

Don't be mistaken. Xeno, I'm not saying that things like the speed of light are variable. Just don't have faith in them, unless you have to.

With regard to faith, you don't have to prove or disprove jesus, son of god. This is a matter of faith. Not a matter of logic, science, or even rationality. Open your mind to the other ways of life, xeno.

You don't have to have faith yourself. Just don't try to talk others outta their's.

So, have you ever been successful in causing another to loose faith? And if you have, was it a good thing for you and the other person?

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

"I would definitely take Kansas State over the state penitentiary."

Just goes to show how much you know.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

I want to lead others to think about truth.

For example, human beings are thought to live in rough societies, somewhat like what our recent ancestors did, all the way back to 25,000 years ago.

I often ask people: If you were born on the Yucatan peninsula nine thousand years ago, or on the main island that is now Japan eleven thousand years ago, or on the steppes of what is now Russia eight thousand years ago, would you have still worshipped Jesus?

I'm content if that is enough to make them think.

And now to bed, for some of us have to work for a living.

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago


regular mohammed as in regular joe. What the hell are you talking about?

Were we discussing science or religion? Support ID? What the hell are you talking about?

Prejudge is not postjudge. Postjudge is what one does after living and working with the people on which an opinion is posited. You don't like my opinion. So, is your experience different? Is your vast experience with Islam in contrast to mine? What the hell are you talking about?

HGA, you're starting to blither. Your retorts are becoming childish, like the "K" didn't make into a word. What the hell are you talking about?

HGA, you are so angry, that you aren't making any sense. I don't support ID. Where did that come from?

I know lots of muslims and I have an opinion about them.

I also know a bunch of Okies. Grew up there. Want to know what I think of their culture?

So, is an opinion about a culture de facto racist? If I gave you an opinion about people from Oklahoma, would I be a racist? Or are you just so angry with me that you can't think anymore?

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

.22 X short:

"total depravity in sin"

Whew! Your Christian masters did a fine job on you. Nothing like a good slug of guilt/shame to make the ol' religious dogma slide down easier.

And, as expected, you missed the point of my post. Human beings create their own religions. Their own creation myths. Like Christianity. Since the beginning of our kind. You and your idiot brethren - Lepanto, con-man, devobrun - don't seem to be able to grasp that simple, very crucial nuance of human civilizations. Human beings create their own religions.

Had you been alive on the Yucatan peninsula eleven thousand years ago, you would have worshipped whatever god(s) your community created. BTW, there were no Jews, or Old Testaments, or dead Galileans stapled to crosses then; you would have worshipped a sun or moon god, or some kind of animal spirit . . . later, you may even have worshipped a Caananite vegetable god, which later evolved into Yahweh.

Were I a better person, I'd feel sorry for you all, for it must really suck going through life as an adult carrying that kind of guilt/shame/pablum/nonsense like a stone around your necks.

Kelly Powell 11 years, 8 months ago

Paldin: lay off the johnstone books.....The tri-states is a scam.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago


The "Problem of Evil" is not anything the local contingent of Christian lollipops want to address, for they would have to conclude that "evil" is relative, as is morality, and they cannot accept that and remain Christians.

There is a mischievous imp in all of us; mine is that I'd like to be next to them when they die, so I can look in their eyes as the light goes out, as they get their last glimpse of reality before eternal oblivion, and whisper to them: "Jesus was never god! You've believed a lie your whole life!"

Hope that doesn't make me a bad person.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


"Hell, Lepanto1571 wasn't even aware that the Problem of Evil existed until he googled it."

Your assessments of anything are extremely suspect as witnessed by the following:

HGA tried, in typical tucktail fashion to claim victory by quoting me:

HGA: [Quoting Lepanto] "It's best to let them claim their little victory."

Full quote by Lepanto is as follows:

"It's best to let them claim their little victory (as their whole identity is tied to it) and live in their self-delusion; as pulling them out of a false sense of superiority would be like trying to make a street-walker on crack, turn straight."

You "crack" me up HGA with your delusional and disengenuous attempts to shed yourself of your embarassment.

Have you mustered the courage yet to comment on your feeble and false attempts at claiming victory? Not likely I bet.

You obviously feel whipped in debate HGA, having to quote so expediently in order to maintain your triumphalist facade and protect that sensitive little self-esteem of yours.

Any comments yet on your obvious disengenuousness and the unfortunate credibility problem you suffer from?

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


"Islam was one of the few religions during the Middle Ages to allow others to practice their religion freely."

Care to cite a source I could read.

"I do believe that non-believers had to pay a tax of some sort but other than that they were allowed to practice their religion free from harrassment."

It was called the Jizya.

For an excellent example of Islamic "tolerance" google "Jannissary."

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


I hadn't realized how truly scared you were. Post crap, fling pooh and hope it sticks or people will grow bored!


The rather obvious point being made here, (and the only one not getting it is you), is the blatant disengenuousness and dishonesty you so openly display and then think yourself actually credible.

If you can't answer for your open disengenuousness and dishonesty, that's fine. All here have seen you for what you are. Your lack of response other than irrelevant, out of context mass posting says all most need to know of you.

Still not willing to comment on my supposed admission of your victory? Let's let the readers decide, since you're so averse to being held accountable for what is obviously embarassing for you.

HGA: [Quoting Lepanto] "It's best to let them claim their little victory."
This is what you posted as my admission of defeat at your hands. Not only dripping with sarcasm, but not even fully quoted!!!


Full quote by Lepanto is as follows:

"It's best to let them claim their little victory (as their whole identity is tied to it) and live in their self-delusion; as pulling them out of a false sense of superiority would be like trying to make a street-walker on crack, turn straight."


You're so obviously a fraudulent, half-a$$ed, insincere and spiteful poster, what makes you believe yourself actually credible?


As if this would have any bearing on the subject, let's post a link to the entire discussion and let the readers count how many times you dodged questions to avoid being pinned down.

I still await your comments regarding my admission of defeat base upon the above quote (and you're still scared).

I'm challenging you openly and everyone is watching you squirm.


xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

Jesus is dead; Christianity will follow in another century or two.

Human societies will evolve to the point where created, supernaturally-based religions will seem quaint.

Have a nice day.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

Cicero, Erasmus . . . but what barbarian king?

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago

HGA, Sorry I didn't respond yesterday. I got sidetracked reading about Syd Barrett and other things.

"regular mohammed" is offensive just like "regular joe". Joseph is the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Lots of westerners are named joseph. Ditto mohammed in Islam.

"regular jesus" could be used in latin countries.

Offensive? You bet. You can find people offended by anything. In fact, people today live on top of each other. Basically, people are pissed that they have to deal with so many people from so many cultures. Its confusing, dangerous, offensive.

I think all this diversity stuff has caused less tolerance in society. People have their antenna up, just looking for someone to offend them. Chill out. Have you ever read anything from sociologists regarding the down side of diversity? Could there be a downside? Or is this a meanspirited and bigoted question? Not to be discussed in public?

Now, your characterization of my opinions is pretty good. congratulations. However, you made one error in the characterization. Please allow me to clarify:

ID and evo are not equal.

If I said that elephants and hippoes are large african animals, I wouldn't be saying that they are equal.

ID and evo are both addressing the question of how did all this life get here? Further, they share the common misconception that evidence and hindcasting and modeling constitute science. Neither can test many of the statements that are made.

Lemme give you an example of how the term science is so often misused. Meriwether Lewis spent a year or two as personal secretary to Jefferson in the white house. Jeff had the habit of inviting guests for dinner. These folks were often the top minds of the time. The idea of including Lewis was to prepare him for conducting "scientific" studies on the voyage of discovery that he eventually made.

So Lewis collected samples and took notes of flora and fauna on the trip. He managed to stay alive and deliver some of this material to Jeff. God love him. It was a terrific adventure from which much was learned.

It wasn't science, but Jeff (and most people) thought it was.
Biology, anthropology, archaeology, etc. have long struggled with the definition of science. What they do are fun exciting, perfectly fine endeavors. But they have trouble meeting the standard of "testing for refutation".

How can I be anti-science? This statement is nonsensical, blithering. Trauma? religious conversion? These are examples of blithering. You think that you have evidence of something, then you extrapolate to a cause of that evidence?

Do ya see a pattern of thinking here HGA?

I really do think that you're angry, HGA, based on your attempts to discredit me on everything from the issue (science) to my writing style, to typos.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


Again, non-answers. But it is good to see you picked up Xenophon as a cheerleader. It's about time.

Nothing but white-wash in your attempt to cover your tracks. But don't worry sweetie, I won't let you forget your dishonesty.

You claimed that I admitted defeat using the following (incomplete) quote of mine:

HGA: [quoting Lepanto]:

"It's best to let them claim their little victory."

My full quote was as follows:

"It's best to let them claim their little victory (as their whole identity is tied to it) and live in their self-delusion; as pulling them out of a false sense of superiority would be like trying to make a street-walker on crack, turn straight."

There is little compelling reason for anyone to believe anything you say based upon that type of dishonesty.

I'm still challenging you openly to explain this rather obvious display of disingenuousness, and everyone is still watching you squirm and divert. Oh I forget, you can't!


I predict you will shotgun blast your typical diversionary, irrelevant tripe (commenting on my supposed comrades comments as if it had to do anything with you and I), as opposed to answering my challenge.


Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


"Haven't ever had Western Civ I & II? An intro. to religions class? I'll get some sources or point the right direction. No biggie."

West Civ I and II? Intro to religions class? Contemptuously dismiss much sow? That's the response of someone with a meager grasp of subject matter attempting to marginalize someone questioning their contention because their understanding is superficial.

You and I can get off on the wrong foot if you wish sbcsow, but I'll try sincerity one more time with you.

Obviously it is a "biggie." Do you really call these "sources."

While I appreciate your attempt, they're nothing more than op-ed and pro-Islamic propaganda. If these are "sources" then undergrad Western Civ has certainly change much (for the worse) since my day. I was looking for something a bit more rigorous, like a few (even) secondary sources. And trust me I will read them, if I haven't already.

If you actually use these as "sources" then you should take a look at the following for the alternative view prior to making up your mind:

Professor Curp's piece is especially balanced and useful.

You should read a bit more about dhimmitude, the Janissaries, and the history of Islamic aggression against India before buying into some sort of supposed universal view that Islam was tolerant.

Again, a couple of well documented books were all I was looking for, not op-ed and pro-Islamic propaganda.

If you can do no better, then I'll just go talk to Xenophon.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago

HGA posted: "sbcsow, you hit the nail on the head. The simple solution to a lot of the so-called 'controversy' on these blogs is three to six hours of Western Civilization and a three hour General Biology course."


If you think that sbcsow "hit the nail on the head," it would seem that 3-6 hours of Western Civ is about your operating level of expertise on the subject matter grail.

I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for you in your desperation and ever-increasing embarassment grail.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago

Again, a non-answer. But at least you were more succinct in your cowardice this time.

Nothing but white-wash and anemic attempts at triumphalism.

You are so unable to accept responsibility for what you say.

You claimed that I admitted defeat using the following (incomplete) quote of mine:

HGA: [quoting Lepanto]:

"It's best to let them claim their little victory."

My full quote was as follows:

"It's best to let them claim their little victory (as their whole identity is tied to it) and live in their self-delusion; as pulling them out of a false sense of superiority would be like trying to make a street-walker on crack, turn straight."

I'm still challenging you openly to explain this rather obvious display of disingenuousness, and everyone is still watching you squirm and divert.

You've tried everything else, to no avail, to cover your tracks, this time it was the brush off.

You're a laugh riot.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


You will seal your fate as the fraud I believe you to be if you don't answer c-man's challenge.

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago


Conjecture and Refutation.

Conjecture is the gathering of information (evidence, data, measurements, relationships between phenomena, etc).

I think gathering information is a broad enough statement.

Conjecture is also what experts in literature do when they analyze chaucer or shakespeare. THey put together cogent arguments for an interpretation of what they read. They support their thesis with passages from the text.

Conjecture is also what police detectives and D.A.'s do when they gather evidence and present a case to a jury. The defense does a similar activity.

History, anthropology, gather evidence and pose rational explanations.

Hell, HGA, Muddy Waters collected information and organized it into blues music. Everybody who ever had a cogent thought about an experience is collecting information and forming an opinion of some kind.

Notice, HGA, I haven't gotten to the reason science is different from these other endeavors. It is just that none of them engage in test for refutation.

On second thought, Muddy Waters is evaluated on his music, by his fans. Ditto for lawyers and juries, and ditto for evo/bios by peer review committees.

You might think these evaluations are tests. They are not. BTW, Muddy Waters has never called what he does science. I's really good music, it's lousy science. Absurd? Sure, just as absurd as calling evo/bio science. It's a great story, like a Muddy Water's tune.

Testing for refutation is what makes science a bit different from other forms of human knowledge.

I have stated this to you many times. You haven't given me an argument against. You state that my definition is too narrow (narrow-minded).

Do you have a definition of science that precludes what lawyers, or historians do? Look, if everybody is a scientist, then we don't have much else to talk about.

Music begins: Everybody is a star, you know it doesn't matter who you are, Sly and the Family Stone, 1969

So where do you draw the boundary of what is science and what isn't HGA? Try to leave personal attacks and anger out of the reply. They waste everybody's time.

Oh, one last question. HGA are you havin' fun yet? I'm startin' to worry about anger.

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago


At the end of my post, I asked some tough questions of HGA. Either she is working on an answer, or my last question caused her to ask that question of herself.

And got scared by the answer.

Speakin' of scared. As I was writing the post to HGA, my air conditioner failed. Assuming that you are in the area, is it hot or what?

Since I am an engineer, I figured out what to do, fixed it and it works fine now.

Now, if I was an evolutionary biologist , would I model the a/c on a computer? Call it an engineering problem and leave such mundane things to others?

Reality bites. Bite back.

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago

For those of you who missed it this morning, devo said:

"Basically, people are pissed that they have to deal with so many people from so many cultures. Its confusing, dangerous, offensive.

I think all this diversity stuff has caused less tolerance in society. People have their antenna up, just looking for someone to offend them. Chill out."

Here ya go:

Kodiac 11 years, 8 months ago

Oooooo Devo,

Shiver me timbers. You got me rattling my bones trying to find a rock to hide under...oh wait my ancestors did that didn't they but then again I don't have the test of refutations for that do I. You know what is confusing Devo. For some reason I can't quite grasp the science in electrical engineering. I find it hilarious that you attempt to make comparisons of different kinds of models and try to claim the difference is some kind of test of refutations and that actually defines science somehow. You lack the ability to define science, models and test of refutations. You also can't seem to discern the difference between scientific observations, hypothesis and theory. Your worthless comparisons are so completely meaningless, useless and have nothing to do with the real world. I suggest you find a different field to dabble in Devo like maybe underwater basket weaving. At least there you might make something useful that someone could use....

Your buddy Kodiac

Oh why don't you give us a definition of a model Devo...In fact you might want to start defining all of your terms Devo....

Kodiac 11 years, 8 months ago

Guess Holy beat me to it. Ah well I guess it is worth hearing it twice....

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago

Conjecture : "Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork."

Right, one gathers information (evidence) which is probably not complete. One then uses intuition, or induction or whatever is necessary to come up with a rational guess.

You and I simply think differently, HGA. You and Kodiac are so irrationally intent on getting me off these boards that you are willing to say all kinds of rubish.

"There is no "gathering of information / data / measurements" in conjecture. Conjecture is guessing." On what basis does an intelligent person make a guess? Incomplete information. Otherwise it isn't much of a guess. And it isn't science either. because there is no question. Your statement regarding the A/C is a perfect example of a guess based on virtually no information.

Science begins with incomplete information, a guess is made and then the guess is tested. Sure, it is an educated guess.

Think guys, think. Karl Popper used the term conjecture to define the setup for science. I didn't come up with the term. Now you want to argue with Karl Popper on the use of the term conjecture.

"There is no "testing for refutation" in science, David." Look, I could try to restate Popper here. Just read his philosophy of science. This is getting tedious. Blithering is the only word I can find to describe your inability to think.

For example: "It doesn't take a PhD in electronics to reset a breaker." I said i figured out what to do and fixed it. It wasn't the circuit breaker.

The cause of your inability to think HGA is anger. YOu are prone to extrapolation by way of your education. So your thought process continues over into rhetoric. YOu just made a statement which is wrong. You guessed. And it wasn't educated. Same thing as evolution. Ok, you can come take fingerprints from the breaker and you'll find mine. This evidence would support your guess.

What happened was a virginia creeper vine got entangled with the coils on the condenser. The poor heat exchange caused the blower motor to overheat. This caused the compressor to overheat as well and really start making noise. I heard this, cut the breaker to check things out. I pulled the vine out, used my hose to cool everything off, and crossed my fingers when I reset the breaker. It worked and is still working.

It takes an HVAC person or a physicist who understands how stuff like A/Cs work. I have yet to come across a problem where I was compelled to call someone who is expert in evolution.

The reason that I had to go such detail to explain the a/c is because HGA is an idiot. Ther, HGA, I know that you were wanting to get me to say it. There, I said it because you demonstrated it so clearly.

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago

Again, HGA you are unable to understand my words, so you make stuff up.

"I find it interesting that your criticism of the conclusions of the global warming scientists have as their basis that the model is wrong, as if the scientists came up with the model first and then attempted to fit the observational data to the model."

No, HGA, my problem with the global warming scientists is that they could be wrong, and the only way they have to test is to run a computer program. They use terms like "experiment" to mean a computer run. They run the model. How do they test the model? By running the model for data from the past and forming a hindcast.

This is model training, not testing.

Oh, Kodiac. I use the term model to mean a mathematical representation of earth's climate. The math comes from a combination of physics (EM) and historical measurements.

Actually, it is a combination of several models. All quite complex. Without a thorough real test of the models, I think making an hypothesis, conclusion recommendation is folly.

When Gore says it is fact it just supports my opinion that global warming is a political ploy.

swbsow, lemme tell you something about the two magpies, Hekyl and Jekyl. They make a lot of noise. They can be irritating. But giving them a dictionary definition of conjecture which includes an example from science will not likely elicit a cogent response.

I have challenged their faith, swbsow. Since they can't think very well, they just get angry at statements like that. So thanks for the help, it is welcome, but don't expect a rational discussion to ensue from HGA and Kodiak.

devobrun 11 years, 8 months ago

Well, Arminius I always thought that these discussions are like conversations. Apparently HGA need for me to be be an english major to contribute.

When I first started writing papers, I found an editor. The first thing she told me was "just get your idea down on paper". This advice liberated me. Since I didn't worry about spelling, syntax, even organization. I was free to "get my idea down on paper".

Then we fixed the english. She is great.

I also thought that personal references to me and my place of work are not good blog etiquette. I'm pretty sure that HGA uses my name and school so that Googlers can land on these blogs.

Thus, I try to keep my cool in response to some pretty hateful diatribes. So, if anybody Googles me to this board, I won't have any trouble with what I've said.

Hekyl and Jekyl have written a body of work on these boards that I sure wouldn't want to defend.

I have no intention of trying to find them out and revealing them. I'll leave the games to the the magpies.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago

Good evening xenophon:

"Jesus is still dead."

There's my guy!!

Hey, just curious if you had anything to add to your contention earlier that only the unintelligent "followed the dead Gallilean?"

I was wondering whether or not you still thought Newton, Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky just a random trio of dumba$$es? I suppose Pascal and C.S Lewis were just a pair of low-grade retards keeping company with those three, huh? Some people.

Have great evening.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago

sbcsow, my apologies, I hadn't realized you responded.

"Lepanto1571, what balls you must have to make a claim that those websites are even remotely balanced & unbiased."

Um, I didn't. I only said Professor Curp's piece was. But hey you got the opportunity to write alot.

These sources were equivalent to yours. You threw up softballs and I threw back hammers. Next time perhaps you'll cite an actual source. I know the talking points and can use google.

By the way what specifically was wrong with "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)."

The entire series is actually outstanding. If you think otherwise, I be glad to hear your reasons.


"Perhaps next time you could actually be sincere instead of arrogant. I'm not impressed with you. You add nothing to civil discourse and the exchange of ideas."

I was being sincere as you now know. Good thing I place minimal priority on impressing you. I supposed drawing the wrong conclusion about cited sources adds to "civil" discourse, huh?


Was that something like: sbcsow: "Haven't ever had Western Civ I & II? An intro. to religions class?"

Tit for Tat sow. As a matter of fact it's quite arrogant to perpetuate what is, in effect, a pop-culture myth and not the universal truth you presented it as, then poh-pooh the education of someone who questions what you write. You and HGA have alot in common, to include an almost natural ability in underestimating who you talk to and the quick use of contemptuous dissmissiveness against those who actually dare to have you prove what you say. Now that's arrogance!

Having some background in the matter with special emphasis on historical warfare, I find what you have asserted as nothing more than wikipedia referenced, scratch the surface bunk that briefs well to mushy headed mall kids who really could care less.

Knowing a bit about the Islamic conquests from 7th to the 11th centuries with the sacking and killing of whole Christian communities in the near-east and north Africa, the raiding and conquest of Anatolia, Manzikert, Muslim use and aquisition of slaves, the Seljuk conquests, barbary corsairs, Crusades, the Ottoman Empire, dhimmitude, and the practice of using Janissaries; I was hoping you might offer a source, other than wikipedia or a google search, that I had yet to see.

If you don't you could have just said so up front.

You're right about one thing, Islamic masters were "tolerant" (under the humiliating weight of dhimmitude and the Jizya of course), but only as far as it either enriched them or furthered their vision of dar-al-islam.

Kodiac 11 years, 8 months ago

"It takes an HVAC person or a physicist who understands how stuff like A/Cs work. I have yet to come across a problem where I was compelled to call someone who is expert in evolution."

"The reason that I had to go such detail to explain the a/c is because HGA is an idiot. "

You have also called people stupid and idiots who "can't learn" on these boards David. I don't quite follow how that is "keeping your cool" and controlling your anger.

I'm sorry if it seems like I hold you to a higher standard than others on these boards but you have clearly indicated that you do teach physics on the secondary level and I think a person who teaches children should be held to a higher standard. Going around calling people idiots because of some lack of ability to fix an A/C is not very becoming of a teacher David. I am just disappointed in the way you express yourself on here David and the type of behavior you have displayed over and over again. I'm not a person who has a PhD or has any claim to be some kind expert in anything. But I do recognize obfuscation and misdirection when it happens and you do it quite alot David.

Kodiac 11 years, 8 months ago

For example you seemed to be quite pleased with yourself on your analysis of the climatilogical model which happens to be probably one of the most controversial, publicized and politicized issue among many different groups of people including scientists within that specific field. It is a very complex model and it does have so many variables that go into it and it is easy to see how such models would be on shaky grounds from a reliability standpoint. But this is not really some kind of newly discovered profound insight on your part David because debates about this specific this type of model have been around longer than you have even thought about them. Then you try to make some feeble connection somehow between evolutionary biology and climatological modelling and say see this isn't science. Kind of like referring to something in astrology and connecting it to physics and saying see this is not science.

I haven't really been keeping track of your arguments with HGA and I really don't care to go back try to figure it out. You haven't really answered my questions David which has alot more to do with your comparisons than anything else. I have noticed that almost always you are comparing apples with oranges. You refer to the theory of evolution and then compare to observations in physics, not the theory of physics. If you truely believe that there is no value in having theories in science, then you should be equally adamant about objecting to gravitational theory, atomic theory, germ theory, theory of limits etc for none of them really have any proof per se, only observations. If you really wanted to talk about models that you bring up in electrical engineering and compare them to models in biology, I'm sure we could find valid comparisons that would have similar probabilities and practical usefulness. If you really serious about discussing this Devo then I suggest you stop trying to use politics and semantics to obfuscate.

Gotta go David and I'm sorry if it seems like I only scratched the surface. Oh by the way, I find it puzzling why you keep referring to Popper as arguments against evolution or natural selection since he was very clear about his support for these concepts as science. You seem to ignore those aspects of Popper that you disagree with wish is similar to creationists trying to use partial statements of evolutionists to support their contentions.

Kodiac 11 years, 8 months ago


I just do a mental ignore list. For example, I have stopped paying attention to what Arminius says and will skip his posts completely. Not to say anything negative about Arminius. I just find that his postings really have no value whatsoever for me. Devo on the other hand is someone that I can use. I don't think he really understands what he does from my standpoint which is alright with me and at the risk of inflating his already supersized ego I will just stop there.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Jesus is dead. Has been for two thousand years. Christianity will be dead in another century or two. Those of you still gullible, impressionable about supernaturally-based religions need to grow up, get in step with your society, the one that has evolved past needing created religions.

Sorry, but I can't and won't accept responsiblity for what people in the past have felt - or said for publication what they felt - about religion and Christianity. No intelligent person today believes a wandering faith healer in an insignificant province of the Roman Empire who managed to get himself executed two thousand years ago is God, the creator of the universe.

Christianity was a splendid religion, once, but it is tired and worn out now. It's best days are long past, and it should be allowed to die without mucking up too many people's lives with its nonsensical dogma and ridiculous guilt trips. "Original sin." Oh please.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


"Sorry, but I can't and won't accept responsiblity for what people in the past have felt - or said for publication what they felt - about religion and Christianity."

Probably because they are inconvenient to your claim.

But you must xenophon, as you continue:

"No intelligent person today believes a wandering faith healer in an insignificant province of the Roman Empire who managed to get himself executed two thousand years ago is God, the creator of the universe."

Now I've noticed you added the clarifier TODAY to your thesis. Interesting. Incremental challenges. (I dare you to step across this this, make it this line). Who's playing the adolescent here xenophon?

The argument used to be no intelligent person or no reasonable person , now it has evolved, since you've been caught (and called on) making absurd claims.

Define "today." Does it mean the modern era since the supposed "enlightenment?" Or, what I would term the "era of imbicility" ushered in since the 1960's.

BTW, and I was just curious, is it your contention that Louis Pasteur was "not intelligent?"

Kodiac 11 years, 8 months ago


Another concept that I haven't quite been able to formulate very well in my head concerning your "test of refutations" has to do with how you are defining the terms in relation to the particular topic you are discussing. This does go back to my request that you start actually defining the terms you are using. For example when you start talking about test of refutations concerning something you do accept as science, it always seems like to me you are talking about the "usefulness" or "practical application" or maybe along the lines of "is it good enough to be useful" of some particular hypothesis, theory, model etc. But the when you change over to attacking say evolution as a science, then your "test of refuation" becomes more about "proving it true" which has nothing to do about whether if it is useful or not. Even climate modeling has some usefulness especially when you deal with more regional types of weather pattern rather than local weather patterns of which we are all fairly familiar with as we curse our local weather forecasters from time to time.

Model results are compared to data, and if there is a mismatch, both the data and the models are re-examined. Sometimes the models can be improved, sometimes the data was mis-interpreted. Every time this happens and we get improved matches between them, we have a little more confidence in their projections for the future, and we go out and look for better tests. That is in fact pretty close to the textbook definition of science isn't it David.

I think you have a tendency to oversimply many of the concepts you try to bring up David which doesn't reflect the real world. I don't know I am certainly not an expert on any of these matters but I do see alot of interaction between engineers, biologists, mathematicians, and physicists etc. that do work together on finding many different types of models in many areas related to evolutionary biology. You don't have to dig to much to see this and it would seem to make your own narrow approach to this matter meaningless and or ill-informed.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


Your are hilarious! You attack others in public, but sheepishly lurk in the shadow of anonymity. Always know that most in this forum see you for the vindictive and spiteful fraud you are.

You claim to be published and have been challenged by C-man to produce said publication. You still haven't. You claimed I somehow ceded victoy to you in debate and dishonestly quoted to supposedly demonstrate it as fact. Fraudulent, period.

Say whatever you will about Devobrun (and Arminius), at least they are not frauds or cowards who make outlandish and unsupported claims about themselves and hide in anonymity like a sissy while hurling crap grenades!

Show Devobrun and Arminius that you're a big girl and can play with the big boys in public!

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago

Nice try grail. You're still a coward. You're just scrambling.

grail: "Failure to review your own content and that of your companions has been a noted characteristic of your arguments."

And fraud is a noted characteristic of yours.

grail: "Can't play with the "Big Boys" in public?????

If you only knew......."

Wow, were just on pins and needles. Give me a break!

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


"conservativeman: Now why in the world would I want to give up my anonymity to someone with these ethics:..."

Because you like to attack publicly and hurl crap grenades like a sissy in anonymous defilade. Not to metnion you couldn't make outlandish and unsubstantiated claims about yourself.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

Lepanto 1571:

Of course people can give their allegiance to a supernaturally-based religion and still be considered by some to be successful in their lives and professions.

But not me. Say you know a man - a good husband, father, community leader, businessman, well-educated, erudite even - and he tells you one day, in all seriousness: "You know, Lepanto, I sure hope Santa Claus brings me a really great present this Christmas."

The disconcertment you would feel is what I feel every time an adult, someone who should know better, admits to believing in superstitious drivel.

Take a course in comparative religions. Study - critically - not like a good, proper little boy.

And rid yourself of superstitious nonsense. You'll feel much better, and be prepared to study truth in the universe as you should.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

Liberal Democrats saved the country - and capitalism - after Republicans screwed it up (Hoover) before, and we'll do it again in November, and in '08 when Hillary ascends to the White House with William the Great at her side.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


"Lepanto1571: I love it when you get so angry that you transpose letters and forget apostrophes and commas."

This would be grail covering the tracks of her now well-established reputation as a fraud. When hysterical, she corrects others grammar (of course, while making dopey grammatical errors herself):

Posted by Arminius:


"Yep, I didn't catch the extra t. Thank you!!"

You missed the "it's" as well, Einstein.

grail posts: "Yep, I'm going to tell an unstable bunch like yourselves who I am...........RIIIIGGGGHT!!!!"

No grail, you'll continue business as usual in your spiteful and psuedo-intellectual manner, and we'll continue to see you as the gutless fraud you are.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


"Of course people can give their allegiance to a supernaturally-based religion and still be considered by some to be successful in their lives and professions. But not me."

xeno, you could have saved yourself some effort by just answering the question of whether of not you thought Copernicus, Gallileo, Shakespeare, Pascal, Newton, Dumas, Victor Hugo, Louis Pasteur, John Locke, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Greene, Waugh and even VOLTAIRE! were unintelligent as you have asserted of the "followers of the dead Gallilean!"

It's pretty much a yes or no answer based upon what you've stated.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


You really ought to go off and have good cry. You'll feel better.

You're running out of material.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago

There's some more grammar for you to correct.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago


No intelligent person believes that an illegitimate Gallilean peasant - spurned by his nominal father, ridiculed into childhood trauma by other children in his village, scorned by girls and women so that he was unable to obey the law that all adult Jewish males marry, forced to leave his home and seek his living as a wandering teacher-faith healer, restricted essentially to Galilee due to the heresies of his teaching, reduced, finally, to the status of a side-show circus with a string of prostitutes in his train - is the god of the universe, responsible for the creation of superstrings.

We cannot know today what anyone actually believed about your silly religion. People were, and remain, careful about what is published about them. And, most of those you brandish from the past lacked access to the gifts of knowledge that secular humanism affords us.

Again, even your Thomas Aquinas would have been a secular humanist were he alive today; no one who loved logic so much would give allegiance to such an illogical proposition as your silly religion.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

The two of you should run away and join the circus.

anonimiss 11 years, 8 months ago

The fact that Xylophone has lived in the US is the best hand he could have. If God truly did hate him, he would be locked up in some third world country jail rotting away while Amnesty International scorns the US for not giving terrorists more TV. Or just look at the numbers. We all live in the US. It was more likely that we lived in China, Russia, the middle east, or some other worse-off area. Your blessings are hiding, your bad hand would be loved by many. You're still alive, making ends meet.

anonimiss 11 years, 8 months ago

At least you'd think that Telephoneschild would better relate with Jesus' ways. In a time when felons, diseased, poor, and others were scorned and outlawed, Jesus picked them up, gave them hope. He rejected the "holier than thou" powers of the day, and pushed for equal rights and access among all. He taught to love your neighbors, love you enemies. He taught to stand up for yourself. But I guess among the radical, some cannot get past simple teachings and regard a man as a great historical figure. They must belittle all they do not like for whatever reason it is that makes them feel better.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


"We cannot know today what anyone actually believed about your silly religion. People were, and remain, careful about what is published about them. And, most of those you brandish from the past lacked access to the gifts of knowledge that secular humanism affords us."

I appreciate your devotion to your newfound religion that uses as it's base precept that the universe generated itself from nothing, human consciousness is a product of chance which would ultimately evolve into the secular state so popular with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Amin.

A couple of snippets of the "glory" of secular "humanism":

"It's OK to lie. It's OK to steal. It's OK to have premarital sex. It's OK to cheat or to kill if these things are part of your value system, and you clarified these values for yourself. The important thing is not what values you choose, but that you have chosen them for yourself and without coercion of parents, spouse, priest, friends, ministers or social pressure of any kind." -- Humanist Curriculum


":a right to birth control, abortion and divorce."

"The many varieties of sexual behavior should not in themselves be considered 'evil.'"

"[Freedom] 'includes a recognition of an individual's rights to die in dignity, euthanasia and the right to suicide.'" --Quoted from: The Humanist Manifesto II, 1973

If you think Aquinas would be a modern secular humanist, then you ,sir, are not only delusional, but boldly so.

You would have a hard time making a case that Copernicus, Gallileo, Shakespeare, Pascal, Newton, Dumas, Victor Hugo, Louis Pasteur, John Locke, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Greene, Waugh, even VOLTAIRE!, or any of the others that you claim to be "unintelligent," would buy into such a ghoulish and poisnous philosophy.

Of course you hate Christianity xeno, it stands in opposition to your new religion of tyranny.

"It is the besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which the masses of men exhibit their tyranny."-- James Fenimore Cooper, "The American Democrat."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."-- Thomas Jefferson

"If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny."-- Patrick Henry

anonimiss 11 years, 8 months ago

Great quote by Patrick Henry. Perhaps it belongs in the article about Nebraska's constitutional amendment being overturned by the courts, and then upheld. How is the constitution unconstitutional, you ask? I ask also. The courts have already turned the bill of rights around. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" now means that crosses used by cities for WWII memorials are against the law. "unreasonable searches and seizures" and freedom of speech, press, and religion now means an unwritten, but implied, right to privacy. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the states" now means absolutely nothing. It's already started.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

Incredible lunacy. Perhaps you guys read, but do you understand . . . anything?

You and your pathetic religion are obsolete. Lawyers, and the law, have replaced religion in our society. I am in no way a fan of lawyers, but I know and accept reality when I see it. Lawyers, and the law, determine most aspects of modern life. No one cares, truly, about your religion anymore, except as a way to pass time on Sunday morning when you have nothing better to do with your life.

And, anonimiss, no one today can say for sure what Jesus said. Paul "created" a lot of the Jesus myth, as did whoever wrote the four gospels that were later accepted as "holy" by the church big-shots.

Actually, I feel sorry for the guy. He did the best he could with what he had to work with. The stigma of illegitimacy screwed him from the get-go, and everything after that was more or less downhill.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


"Incredible lunacy. Perhaps you guys read, but do you understand . . . anything?"

Be specific.

xenophon: " one today can say for sure what Jesus said. Paul "created" a lot of the Jesus myth, as did whoever wrote the four gospels that were later accepted as "holy" by the church big-shots."

"The stigma of illegitimacy screwed him from the get-go..."

You're long on conjecture, but curiously short on facts to substantiate what you contend.

BTW, is it still your belief that Copernicus, Gallileo, Shakespeare, Pascal, Newton, Dumas, Victor Hugo, Louis Pasteur, John Locke, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Greene, Waugh, even VOLTAIRE! were a random collection of dumba$$es for what they believed about the "dead Gallilean."

Oh and BTW, I did notice earlier you mentioned superstring as some sort of decisive blow against belief in God. Could you be specific about what in theoretical physics has rendered God obsolete?

Perhaps just more wild speculation emitted from a barely comprehending mind about a purely theoretical and extraordinarily complex idea? I don't recall reading anything there that has rendered God passe' (and for the record I do find the theory fascinating).

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


Very upright of you and a welcome bit of courtesy on this board.

I have often said I will respond in kind whether to the vindictive polemicist or the sincere poster, regardless of their views.

I have held a number of respectful blog relations with those who think contrary to me and will always give a fair hearing to views I may stand opposed to.

I disagree with your assessment of Islam based on all evidence available, but respect your sincerity and magnanimity.

I hope we may discuss such matters with mutual courtesy in the future.



Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


Excellent post at: July 15, 2006 at 4:15 p.m.

Here's a few more golden nuggets. Perhaps the progeny of Xenophon would benefit from further study.

"Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice."-- Arcesilaus

"When the state is corrupt then the laws are most multiplied."-- Tacitus.

"The more laws, the less justice."-- Cicero

"The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."-- Thomas Jefferson

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal...knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."-- Thomas Jefferson, September 28, 1820, "Letter to William Jarvis."

"We have long suffered under base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another."-- Thomas Jefferson, (To Governor Tyler, May 26, 1810).

"Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps."-- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Charles Jarvis, 1820).

"The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constituion of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one."-- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Charles Hammond, 1821.



xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago


Angelo Bruno. Take ten minutes to find out who he was, what he wrote and thought and taught . . . and what happened to him. He was only one of tens of thousands of examples to the rest of society to keep their thoughts and concerns about Jesus and your religion to themselves. Only in the last thirty years have we been truly free to speak our minds about religion, although Professor Milecki might disagree.

I note that you, and most of your colleagues, ignore the essence of posts and focus only on nuances for which you have some semblance of an answer. I posted that Christianity is essentially obsolete, for we are now ruled by lawyers. Perhaps they are the new Pharisees, their superiors the new Sadduccees. To quote Roger Daltry: "Meet the new boss."

I feel that all the old-sky god religions are in basic conflict with modern science, especially cosmology, astronomy, quantum physics, and biology, largely because they support an alternative theory about the origins and development of the universe.

Biology is based almost entirely on the theory of evolution, which, with apologies to my good friend Fr. Vince Krische, is supported by a large body of paleontological and genomic evidence that describes how complex life has developed through a very slow and essentially random process of mutation, adaptation, and natural selection.

The thing I learned in prison is that the human race is merely one species among others, one of many random products of evolution. The classic definition of a psychopath is one who treats human beings as things, as objects. I lived thirty-plus years in an environment where human beings were considered things - and not very appreciable things at that - and used that unique vantage point to divine the truth that we are nothing special in the scheme of things. All the old sky-god religions give humankind a central role in creation - we are thought to be created "in God's image" and to be a qualitatively different order of life than "mere beasts in the fields." It might be worth noting that, as our sun is only one undistinquished star among billions in the Milky Way, which is itself merely one undistinguished galaxy among billions of others, and that modern humans have existed for only 0.0015% of the age of the universe can be seen as rendering implausible any proposition that our universe was created - by some old guy with a beard on a white cloud - with mankind even remotely in mind.

The supposed "miracles" of Christ are repugnant, and manifestly unacceptable. Western science is based on the assumption that the universe is governed by unchanging and unchangeable natural physical laws that can be determined by experiment and used as a reliable basis for prediction. This assumes the absence of divine interference.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

Lepanto: (continued)

I can make an argument that the success of modern science implies that your god is either absent, or at the very least, taking a hands-off approach to governing the universe. I prefer Einstein's observation that god is much like an absentee landlord.

I have a hangover from another universe and must go hunting for catfish on the Delaware River.

I bear you, and no one else on this board, any malice. If it is any consolation, I treat Islam much more harshly, and rightly so, and receive death threats accordingly from headbangers-for-Allah in fly-specked countries I've barely heard of (Qatar) for articles I write for an on-line magazine. At least Jesus never murdered women and children.

Christine Pennewell Davis 11 years, 8 months ago

so how many days has this one been going everyone?

Kodiac 11 years, 8 months ago


I am somewhat disappointed you haven't responded Devo. Maybe you don't deem my questions to be worthy enought to respond to. Or maybe you have decided to take my advice and stay off of these boards.

My objection still stands Devo. Your "test of refutability" for evolution is that you have to be able to actually see it. Yet most scientific theories rely on inferences and not direct observation. Your analysis ultimately fails Devo because you will not deal with the mountain of evidence that evolution is inferred from. Agreed that evolution is historically based but it does not make it any less important or less useful in terms of understanding biology and the nature of our world. And it certainly does not mean it can't falsified for there are many ways to falsify this theory. In fact I was reading an essay last night (forgot who) where the author suggested we should be applying Darwin's great idea on a cosmic level, i.e. the formation of universes. I thought hmmm, I think Devo might have something to say about that. "Test of refutability" anyone?

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago


Que? Somebody been shoveling Valiums to the local contingent of trogs?

Regardless of their impetus, the operative idea where they're concerned is: "You can't make a silk purse of a sows ear."

Republicans can have manners, I guess, but like the Platte River - a mile wide and an inch deep in the middle.

Conservatives are a curse on the country - past, present, and the future.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

BTW, the recent Hamdan decision by the SC might indicate that they are much less likely to intrude any further into women's right to abortion. Alito may not be the silver bullet so many fundies have prayed so hard for so long.

Once a society has evolved, it is both wrong - and difficult - to try and return to the past.

Kodiac 11 years, 8 months ago

"Day 7 and still going strong."

Hey I thought we rested on Day 7 don't we?

Christine Pennewell Davis 11 years, 8 months ago

not on this forum I guess, they keep going and going and going....:)

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

Bush is an embarrassment - a potty mouth! Who'd a thunk it? William the Great would never have spouted drivel in the presence of foreign leaders. What a joke!

ksmoderate 11 years, 8 months ago

Bush is an international embarrassment. His antics at G8 are REALLY helping with how the other civilized countries of the world view us! Hooray for the cowboy from Yale!

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

.22 short:

Dude, you don't know - obviously - how embarrassing it is to open this site and read the drivel you post.

"Christ the Son God"? Oh please. Do you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy too?

The ethics that were created along with the dogma and theology are inspiring - love thy neighbor, seek to do good, etc. - but the dogma and theology are a tired, worn out joke. Resurrection? Maybe you can explain that - in a cloud, a big blast . . . what? Then, what will it be like . . . a counting house? A group of celestial certified accountants running through each life, assigning merits or demerits according to "sins" and virtues?

Don't you see the inconsistencies in your scheme of things? Creation myths are for children, and the weak-minded. Which are you?

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago


Okay, the Bunny is cool. I used to raise rabbits in the power plant in the joint at Hutch; it was fenced in so they greyhounds couldn't get at them. I'd get apples out of the kitchen at morning chow, cut them up and lay them on the ground for them. They eventually would come up near my boots and eat. One day I didn't get them anything - can't remember the nuances - and they glared at me, like : "Dude, where's our apples!?"

After you read Adams' "Watership Down," you're hooked on the coneys for life. However, in the novel I'm writing now, when the Depression hits and the Dust Bowl sets in in central Kansas, the residents organize massive jack rabbit hunts and club thousands of the creatures for food and their skins. Good protein in tough times.

Be careful, now. You can have the Bunny, but Santa and the Tooth Fairy (and Tinkerbell) are strictly the province of conservative Republican fundamentalist Christians.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 8 months ago


Posted by holygrailale (anonymous):

"It's best to let them have their little victory".....


Posted by holygrailale:

"Lepanto1571 attempted to declare that the debate he resigned in had never happened."

Still trying to make that one stick slick?

You need new material.

Actual quote: "It's best to let them claim their little victory (as their whole identity is tied to it) and live in their self-delusion; as pulling them out of a false sense of superiority would be like trying to make a street-walker on crack, turn straight."

grail, there are programs available to assist you in shedding the self-esteem destroying profession of prostitution and addiction to the pipe!


Why continue to embarass yourself? You obviously feel beaten, thus the the weak attempt at scratching out some sort of face-saving victory.

I admire your persistence grail, but you'll actually prove your published and smart, long before you'll prove the claim that I ceded victory!


Keep trying grail, you remind of the little engine that could.

CHOO! CHOO! Chugga Chugga Chugga Chugga, CHOO! CHOO! You can do it!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.