patrick.net

Dan8267 says

P.S. Every founding father was a felon, guilty of terrorism, insurrection, and treason to the crown. Nice hypocrisy.

If they had sex with their slaves that would make them rapists.

Strategist says

If they had sex with their slaves that would make them rapists.

Jefferson did!

Strategist says

What you are saying is ......Only those who agree with me should be allowed to vote.

That's a blatant Straw Man.

There's a huge difference between never disagreeing with a person and thinking the world is controlled by pixies and unicorns. Your god is no less ridiculous than a pixie. If thinking that armies of pixies are making the sun move up and down is a delusion, then so is thinking a god causes everything is.

When a child dies due to a preventable disease, people say it was god's plan. Now if they said a troll cast a spell on the child, we'd call them crazy. Both situations are equally crazy and both are equally harmful to rational policy making.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

P.S. Every founding father was a felon, guilty of terrorism, insurrection, and treason to the crown. Nice hypocrisy.

If they had sex with their slaves that would make them rapists.

They did, and they were. Slave rape was the norm in the American South. Do you really think that horny young men are not going to force women they own to perform sexual acts on them? And yet, the south didn't see the immorality of slavery. What bullshit.

Mike Huckabee generates exactly why religion is detrimental to democracy, self-government, and liberty. And Huckabee is a mainstream Republican, not their lunatic fringe. Yes, I'm aware it's hard to tell the difference between the mainstream and the lunatic fringe in the Republican Party.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/juRO1RSKgQs

https://www.youtube.com/embed/kmNjRX-ZCzA

https://www.youtube.com/embed/VB4dB-2oC78

Anyone that delusional should not have any say in policy making. Anyone who calls to have U.S. law be based on the Biblical law is NO different than one who wants to implement Sharia law in America.

And this is why we need to stop tolerating religion anymore. We're at a crossroads and Bronze Age religions are not compatible with freedom and 21st century life. Christianity is no more comparable with the welfare of society than Satanism is, as has been proved time and time again over the past two decades.

Dan8267 says

Mike Huckabee....

I think you mean Michelle.

Dan8267 says

stop tolerating religion....

The 1st Amendment remains part of the Bill of Rights, and should in my opinion remain there, but America succeeds partly because of its ability to pivot when necessary. During the cold war, America faced an officially atheist enemy, and drew on religious support "for god and country." 9/11 showed that America faced a new enemy, in the form of religious extremism (particularly Islam). To pivot successfully, America should emphasize the separation of church and state.

Alas for 8 years America endured an overtly very religious "Christian" President who launched what he called a "crusade" into Iraq after listening to "a higher father," even while claiming to "respect" Islam. Iraq has now an expressly religious Constitution, as most Muslim countries do, and that requires them to fight endlessly over which faction has the one "true" interpretation of Islam. The resulting conflict empowers the military industrial complex, which is the point, just as the point of Obamneycare is to empower the medical industrial complex. To the extent that both industrial complexes are principally American, we are "winning" like Charlie Sheen: on top of the world, but maybe not for much longer.

In my opinion, long term success requires what the founders would have called "liberal," in the sense of the Enlightenment, respecting that people have a right to live their own lives in accord with their own beliefs, allowing them a stake in a country where they may live peaceably in accord to what they consider most important, and reasoning together to see what we can agree on. As the founders recognized from European history (e.g. the 30 years war and the reformation), fighting about "my pixies are better than your pixies," or "my trolls are more dangerous than your trolls" tends to produce nothing but fighting, because there is no way to prove either side right other than fighting to the death until only one faction remains. (And then they will inevitably be subdivided further, wash rinse repeat.) If I don't see your pixies, or you don't see mine, then we should be able to set pixies aside and focus on what we can all see together. Alas the GOP refuses outright to reason together without wrapping themselves in religion, and alas America becomes increasingly polarized as a result; cult member Romnesia campaigned on a platform that invoked "God" 19 times, and prevailed 60/40 among weekly "Christian" churchgoers, but lost 70/30 among everyone else.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

What you are saying is ......Only those who agree with me should be allowed to vote.

That's a blatant Straw Man.

Not at all. You are the quintessential Totalitarian Prog. I couldn't make better caricature.

You demonstrate your dangerous and Totalitarian tendencies virtually every day on this blog with the shit you write.

The ash heap of history is littered with fanatical Progs like you.

CaptainShuddup says

I think people who think other people shouldn't vote, shouldn't vote.

I can't get behind this, because it would exclude registered Republicans from voting.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

What you are saying is ......Only those who agree with me should be allowed to vote.

That's a blatant Straw Man.

There's a huge difference between never disagreeing with a person and thinking the world is controlled by pixies and unicorns. Your god is no less ridiculous than a pixie. If thinking that armies of pixies are making the sun move up and down is a delusion, then so is thinking a god causes everything is.

When a child dies due to a preventable disease, people say it was god's plan. Now if they said a troll cast a spell on the child, we'd call them crazy. Both situations are equally crazy and both are equally harmful to rational policy making.

Dan thinks he is the only one allowed to vote, unless others who vote also agree with him.

anonymous says

socal2 says

All this drama for what - 2 percent of the population that are attracted to the opposite sex?

socal2 - Not sure if this was covered earlier - you mean to tell me only 2 percent of the population is straight? What the hell happened to California between last fall when I left and now? Talk about drama - and I missed it all...damn

Same Sex!

I meant same sex! Thanks, I'll fix.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

What you are saying is ......Only those who agree with me should be allowed to vote.

That's a blatant Straw Man.

Not at all.

Oh honey, in order for it not to be a Straw Man, I would have to actually take the stated position that no one who disagrees with me on anything can vote. I don't take that position. Therefore, it's a Straw Man and you're a dumb ass.

FortWayne says

Dan thinks he is the only one allowed to vote, unless others who vote also agree with him.

Again, this is a Straw Man and a blatant lie. Those who make Straw Man arguments do so because they have no counter-arguments to their opponent's actual argument. In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Dan thinks he is the only one allowed to vote, unless others who vote also agree with him.

Again, this is a Straw Man and a blatant lie. Those who make Straw Man arguments do so because they have no counter-arguments to their opponent's actual argument. In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on.

That is what your arguments indicate. Except for the felons. Most felons are not atheists, what if they vote to behead you.

curious2 says

The 1st Amendment remains part of the Bill of Rights, and should in my opinion remain there

The part about freedom of speech should remain. But why protect or even allow religion? The founding fathers put that in the Constitution because they thought it would prevent religious wars like that of the Catholics vs the Protestants in England that happened in recent history from their perspective. But we are fighting religious wars right now.

Also, no other delusion is given special protection. If I think I'm Napoleon and this is France, that won't stop me from being arrested if I storm the White House and demand allegiance from everyone or if I try to gather an army to invade Russia. No person is given any privileges because he has some delusion except when that delusion is called a religion.

However, we don't have any real freedom of religion in this country anyway. Even Christian beliefs that are inconvenient for the state are not allowed to be practiced. A Christian who was truly following the teachings of Christ could never pay any income taxes if any of those taxes goes to war. That violates the fifth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". Even indirectly killing by supporting financially or in any other way is a violation of this commandment. Therefore no true Christian could serve in the military even as a conscientious objector. Yet, this belief has never stopped the draft.

And for non-Christian religions, there is even less pretense of respecting the right to practice aspects of them. Some religions forbid being photographed. Does this stop the police from taking mugshots or prevent the recording of such people with security cameras? Does religious doctrine about modesty prevent the use of rape scanners and body frisks from being done at the airport? What about religions that use mind altering drugs to reach a state of enlightenment? The government may make acceptation to alcohol laws for Christians, but it's not going to make exceptions to marijuana laws for other religions. And don't forget about all those orgies with 15-year-old girls held by ancient religions of Rome and Greece. Think our government would tolerate that?

Our country only protects a very narrow set of religious practices that the state is comfortable with. That's not real freedom of religion. So going a step further and removing all legal protections and privileges of those religions is simply creating an equal playing field.

And I'd start with the tax code and make all these religions pay 200 years of back-taxes plus fines and interest.

Strategist says

That is what your arguments indicate.

No it doesn't. And saying a horse is a banana does not make the horse a banana.

Strategist says

Most felons are not atheists, what if they vote to behead you.

As I've said many times, the rights of individuals trump majority rule.

And if that's the best argument you have against felons being allowed to vote, you have no argument.

Dan8267 says

At Yale, a third of people are atheist or agnostic -- and agnostic is code for "I'm an atheist, but I'm too much of a pussy to stand up for the truth....

Dan, I've been trying to find the original source for the linked study, and haven't been able to so far. Your link goes ironically to a Christianist website; its home page says, "Illegal discrimination against Christians on public university campuses is pervasive and must be confronted." The specific article you linked claims agnosticism and atheism are rare at Yale college and over-represented in the law school; the number "a third of people" refers only to Yale Law students not all people at Yale.

In general, studies of aptitude and religion tend to report that atheism correlates positively with intelligence and atheists tend to have the highest IQ of any religious or non-religious identification, while agnostics tend to rank somewhere around second. There can be overlap as there are individual exceptions to every rule, and certainly there are many religious people who score very highly. I think what you call cowardice is rather a question of perspective. If you grow up being always the smartest person in every room, then you develop a level of confidence or even arrogance. If you grow up ranking second or third, and you notice that people smarter than you tend to disagree about something, then you develop a sense of uncertainty about it, and a respect for people of differing opinions as to things people can't see - whether pixies, trolls, or string theory.

curious2 says

In general, studies of aptitude and religion tend to report that atheism correlates positively with intelligence and atheists tend to have the highest IQ of any religious or non-religious identification, while agnostics tend to rank somewhere around second.

An agnostic is "An atheist without balls"
Question for you: More and more people are becoming atheists. Is it IQ, or is it education? Or....does education elevate your IQ?

Dan8267 says

And don't forget about all those orgies with 15-year-old girls held by ancient religions of Rome and Greece.

Herodotus, Book I:199

Every woman of the country must sit down in the precincts of Aphrodite once in her life and have commerce with a man who is a stranger: and many women who do not deign to mingle with the rest, because they are made arrogant by wealth, drive to the temple with pairs of horses in covered carriages, and so take their place, and a large number of attendants follow after them; but the greater number do thus,--in the sacred enclosure of Aphrodite sit great numbers of women with a wreath of cord about their heads; some come and others go; and there are passages in straight lines going between the women in every direction, through which the strangers pass by and make their choice. Here when a woman takes her seat she does not depart again to her house until one of the strangers has thrown a silver coin into her lap and has had commerce with her outside the temple, and after throwing it he must say these words only: "I demand thee in the name of the goddess Mylitta": now Mylitta is the name given by the Assyrians to Aphrodite: and the silver coin may be of any value; whatever it is she will not refuse it, for that is not lawful for her, seeing that this coin is made sacred by the act: and she follows the man who has first thrown and does not reject any: and after that she departs to her house, having acquitted herself of her duty to the goddess, nor will you be able thenceforth to give any gift so great as to win her. So then as many as have attained to beauty and stature are speedily released, but those of them who are unshapely remain there much time, not being able to fulfil the law; for some of them remain even as much as three or four years: and in some parts of Cyprus too there is a custom similar to this.

Fucking Constantine, that Clown-wig wearing bastard, Ending an Ancient and Proud Tradition.

The emperor’s next care was to kindle, as it were, a brilliant torch, by the light of which he directed his imperial gaze around, to see if any hidden vestiges of error might still exist. And as the keen-sighted eagle in its heavenward flight is able to descry from its lofty height the most distant objects on the earth, so did he, while residing in the imperial palace of his own fair city, discover as from a watch-tower a hidden and fatal snare of souls in the province of Phœnicia. This was a grove and temple, not situated in the midst of any city, nor in any public place, as for splendor of effect is generally the case, but apart from the beaten and frequented road, at Aphaca, on part of the summit of Mount Lebanon, and dedicated to the foul demon known by the name of Venus. It was a school of wickedness for all the votaries of impurity, and such as destroyed their bodies with effeminacy. Here men undeserving of the name forgot the dignity of their sex, and propitiated the demon by their effeminate conduct; here too unlawful commerce of women and adulterous intercourse, with other horrible and infamous practices, were perpetrated in this temple as in a place beyond the scope and restraint of law. Meantime these evils remained unchecked by the presence of any observer, since no one of fair character ventured to visit such scenes. These proceedings, however, could not escape the vigilance of our august emperor, who, having himself inspected them with characteristic forethought, and judging that such a temple was unfit for the light of heaven, gave orders that the building with its offerings should be utterly destroyed. Accordingly, in obedience to the imperial command, these engines of an impure superstition were immediately abolished, and the hand of military force was made instrumental in purging the place. And now those who had heretofore lived without restraint learned self-control through the emperor’s threat of punishment, as likewise those superstitious Gentiles wise in their own conceit, who now obtained experimental proof of their own folly.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iv.vi.iii.lv.html

curious2 says

refers only to Yale Law students not all people at Yale

Yeah, that's what I meant to say. I worded it bad. I was trying to make the point that there are certainly enough agnostics and atheists who are qualified to manage or run government in contrast to the assertion that there would be no one left to vote on issues or candidates.

There is a reference to a religious affiliation survey done in Oct 2011 on the charts.

Strategist says

Question for you: More and more people are becoming atheists. Is it IQ, or is it education? Or....does education elevate your IQ?

The brain is like a muscle; the more you use it, the stronger it gets.

Genetics gives you so much potential in a trait: strength, intelligence, charisma, agility, etc. However, you have to develop that potential with practice. Acquiring knowledge and reasoning through difficult problems is the way that intelligence is developed.

thunderlips11 says

Here when a woman takes her seat she does not depart again to her house until one of the strangers has thrown a silver coin into her lap and has had commerce with her outside the temple

By the way, the beautiful women always fetched a high price and were immediately chosen. The uglies stayed at the temple for years and got a pittance.

Dan8267 says

Again, this is a Straw Man and a blatant lie. Those who make Straw Man arguments do so because they have no counter-arguments to their opponent's actual argument. In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on

So you are saying that you make all your arguments because you have "no counter-arguments", in other words you "dont have a leg to stand on".

According to you Dan, Republicans can't vote, religious folk can't vote. So pretty much no one can vote, except for all mighty you of course. That is at least until you realize that liberalism to you is like your own form of conviction/religion and you probably would fall right into that same bucket.

Dan8267 says

the religious simply ignore reality.

Kind of like liberals ignore reality and live in some naive/gullible world where their views and opinions might actually be right.

I really don't talk to Jesus as often as you think. Try Pope.

FortWayne says

So you are saying that you make all your arguments because you have "no counter-arguments", in other words you "dont have a leg to stand on".

FortWayne says

According to you Dan, Republicans can't vote

I never said that. I said that if we don't allow the mentally incompetent to vote than that should include those delusional enough to think a bearded sky daddy controls everything. I've justified that statement. No one has even attempted to argue that point.

There are plenty of godless Republicans who only care about money. In fact, they lead the Republican Party.

FortWayne says

Kind of like liberals ignore reality and live in some naive/gullible world where their views and opinions might actually be right.

Just because someone doesn't agree with your empirically disproved economic theories does not mean they ignore reality. Au contraire, it means they do look at reality when evaluating predictions.

In contrast, if you think god created the Earth in six days around 6,000 years ago, you're just delusional. If you think Adam and Eve were real, you just crazy. If you think Noah actually built an ark that housed two of each animal, you have no grasp on reality. If you think Jesus rose from the dead, you are incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction. These are sound reasons to disallow voting under the currently accepted criteria that you have to be mentally sound to vote. Believing any of those things is, by definition, not mentally sound.

Another day, and more examples of Dan's bigotry and ignorance on full display.

I would love to have been able to introduce you to one of my great uncles who was a Catholic Priest (Jesuit) and a published geneticist. He did ground breaking work back in the 1960's (even before Vatican II) and could talk circles around your feeble hateful mind in terms of science, philosophy and law. Another one of my great uncles spent his entire adult life in South America helping the poor in small villages building infrastructure, schools and water systems. These 2 guys did far more for humanity than your little hateful mind frothing at the mouth on this website.

You have such a dumb caricature of what it means to be religious it is almost funny. But then again, you probably grew up in some hick town in Florida and had fundamentalist parents, so you have no frame of reference to the wider religious society and are just lashing out because your parents didn't let you play D&D or go out for Halloween.

socal2 says

Another day, and more examples of Dan's bigotry and ignorance on full display.

Ah, the hypocrisy of conservative bigots like socal2, who claims god hates fags but calls me a bigot for saying that a person who believes the world is only 6000 years old does not distinguish between fantasy and reality. I stand by my statements. They are factually correct. Socal2 cannot justify his bigoted and ignorant remarks.

socal2 says

I would love to have been able to introduce you to one of my great uncles who was a Catholic Priest (Jesuit) and a published geneticist.

Have him open an account on PatNet. I have no problem debating him. By the way, simply calling yourself a man of god and a scientist doesn't mean crap. You're latest fallacy is called appeal to authority. There have been plenty of people who have both contributes great work to science and also done some batshit crazy things.

Isaac Newton comes to mind. He's the father of classical physics, but he also believed in the occult including alchemy, the Philosopher’s Stone (yes, Harry Potter stuff), and that the world would end in the year 2060. Just because Netwon was right on the laws of motion does not make him right on alchemy.

socal2 says

You have such a dumb caricature of what it means to be religious it is almost funny.

So then, you don't believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then? That's just a metaphor. It's not meant to be taken literally. Jesus Christ rotted in his grave. That's what you are saying, right?

socal2 says

so you have no frame of reference to the wider religious society and are just lashing out because your parents didn't let you play D&D or go out for Halloween.

Honey, just because your crazy does not mean I have mental issues as well. You are projecting in order to defend your delusions. And that makes you even more crazy.

Jesus Christ...what part of "have been able" don't you understand?
Or is it that you really do believe in an afterlife, and are prodding socal to enlist his deceased relative to join up using some religious wormhole or some shit??

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

I would love to have been able to introduce you to one of my great uncles who was a Catholic Priest (Jesuit) and a published geneticist.

Have him open an account on PatNet.

entirely feasible given the USA's retreat as the world's enforcer, and the rise of russia/china/iran...this whole business is coming to a nuclear head....
Thanks Obama!

Dan8267 says

There have been plenty of people who have both contributes great work to science and also done some batshit crazy things.

Isaac Newton comes to mind. He's the father of classical physics, but he also believed in the occult including alchemy, the Philosopher’s Stone (yes, Harry Potter stuff), and that the world would end in the year 2060

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Question for you: More and more people are becoming atheists. Is it IQ, or is it education? Or....does education elevate your IQ?

The brain is like a muscle; the more you use it, the stronger it gets.

I think it's the Information Age including education and the Internet. Most children are born into religious families, and only a minority grow up to question and challenge what they're told, and these comparative few are dispersed geographically and may face discrimination locally. As Ron Reagan said, he could never get elected to anything, being an atheist; he went to work hosting a radio show instead, where syndication enabled him to reach a dispersed minority who add up to an audience. The advent of radio and especially the Internet have enabled people with questions to compare a variety of answers, including comparing religious vs secular. For example, there was a website called "Why Does God Hate Amputees?" (It has been renamed, to avoid offending amputees.) As Thomas Jefferson predicted, in open debate, better ideas tend eventually to displace worse ideas. The process can take a long time; Robert Hooke wrote about evolution in the 17th century, and here we are more than three centuries later with most Americans not believing it.

FortWayne says

I really don't talk to Jesus as often as you think. Try Pope.

Forthood may have been talking to the Pope, but evidently not listening to him:

On Gay Priests, Pope Francis Asks, ‘Who Am I to Judge?’

When you see someone pretending to be more Catholic than the Pope, you know he's using the religion as cover to hide something else. In Forthood's case, what he's hiding is painfully obvious.

SoftShell says

Jesus Christ...what part of "have been able" don't you understand?

If his religion is correct about the afterlife, he should still be able to converse. Does his mind still exist? Why would an alleged god who wants us to accept his existence prevent the dead from talking to the living? If the Bible is true, the dead do talk to the living. Both Jesus and Lazarus come to mind.

SoftShell says

entirely feasible given the USA's retreat as the world's enforcer, and the rise of russia/china/iran...this whole business is coming to a nuclear head....

Thanks Obama!

OK, if the world ends in 2060 I'll admit I was wrong about everything religious. If not, all you knuckleheads have to admit you were batshit crazy.

curious2 says

Most children are born into religious families, and only a minority grow up to question and challenge what they're told

Yes, religion relies on brainwashing and indoctrination of children, which is a form of child abuse.

curious2 says

As Thomas Jefferson predicted, in open debate, better ideas tend eventually to displace worse ideas.

I'm still waiting for that to apply to PatNet. Seems like we're always debating -- and I use that term loosely -- the same subjects.

You assume he went to heaven.
for all we know tweeting from hell may be banned... *

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Jesus Christ...what part of "have been able" don't you understand?

If his religion is correct about the afterlife, he should still be able to converse.

SoftShell says

You assume he went to heaven.

for all we know tweeting from hell may be banned...

Don't be silly. All tweets come from hell.

Dan8267 says

Does PatNet have enough disk space to store them all?

Probably not. Every time Forthood thinks a sinful thought, he must atone by trolling. He used to do the same on SFGate.com until they got rid of him and changed their comment functionality. (Though Forthood lives in Reseda, he believes SF is "sin city" and trolls the SFBA). As with Larry Craig and Mark Foley and Dennis Hastert, they must feverishly atone, daily they are reminded that they must atone, and flagellate themselves; they cannot stop.

Dan8267 says

I'll even give a personal anecdote. Although I'm a hard core atheist, I have friends who are born again Christians and friends who are Jewish. One of my Jewish friends has two young sons. They were told that they are going to hell for not believing in Christ by one of the neighborhood Christian boys. When my friend heard about that he told what the kid said to his mother. Her response was something to the effect of well, they are [going to hell].

You DO live in fundy land! Maybe you need to move out of redneck Florida Dan? I'm in a mixed religious family and none of my children have ever had their friends (let alone parents) tell them shit like that.

Dan8267 says

Isaac Newton comes to mind. He's the father of classical physics, but he also believed in the occult including alchemy, the Philosopher’s Stone (yes, Harry Potter stuff), and that the world would end in the year 2060. Just because Netwon was right on the laws of motion does not make him right on alchemy.

And in Dan's world, one of the greatest scientific minds in history wouldn't be allowed to vote. But felons OK!

Dan8267 says

Ah, the hypocrisy of conservative bigots like socal2, who claims god hates fags but calls me a bigot for saying that a person who believes the world is only 6000 years old does not distinguish between fantasy and reality. I stand by my statements. They are factually correct. Socal2 cannot justify his bigoted and ignorant remarks.

I've never said anything remotely like that above. You are confusing me with your Florida redneck neighbors and family.

Dan8267 says

Have him open an account on PatNet. I have no problem debating him. By the way, simply calling yourself a man of god and a scientist doesn't mean crap. You're latest fallacy is called appeal to authority.

He's long since passed, but he also taught math and science in college for decades and dealt with lots of angry little cock-sure students like you. So I am sure he would have been fine talking circles around you. And I see you are offering Patnet another pearl of wisdom of yours implying that people can't be religious and also be scientists. In your tiny little world you really think these things HAVE to be mutually exclusive.

I almost feel so sorry for you Dan. You appear to be one of the most angry and bitter people on Patnet. Did your parents give your inheritance money to a televangelist or were you molested as an alter boy? Your anger and "righteous indignation" borders on the pathological.

Dan8267 says

Yes, religion relies on brainwashing and indoctrination of children, which is a form of child abuse.

Without indoctrination of children before they develop critical thinking skills -

Before they can even reliably detect blatant sarcasm*

- Religion is doomed. It would have a handful of ardent adherents - like the people who come to believe in ESP or healing chakras, but it's effect on society would be around nil.

Religion focuses on indoctrinating children to survive.

If Religion was a "Considered Choice", we wouldn't see religion distributed geographically where various ethnic groups cluster.

*Around 8-10 years old.