Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LMFAO !Religious people accomplish more real-world work
than unbelievers.
As I said, religion has historically been a great organizing force.John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:09:41 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:58:53 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty. It is
seriously frightening to even consider that she could be the boss
of the US. She is a women that likes to shop, expensively, that's
about it.
I am absolutely stunned by your view here John . Is this a wind
up?
Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
What does "numpty" mean? She was a successful mayor and governor.
She's not a lawyer. She's bright, funny, and practical.
Joe Biden is a blowhard and a lunatic who can't keep his thoughts
or mouth under control. He makes up things that never happened and
steals shamelessly. His affect is hair plugs and botox. Like
Obama, he's a fake, an illusion. Sarah is real, the kind of
person I'm guessing you could trust. The US will trust Obama or
Biden at its great peril.
Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers
is unfit to manage a dog show.
---
You're ever so right Kevin.
I think you've proven that job is well handled by those with
vehemently anti-religious views such as yours.
Its irrelevant whether or not anti-religious may or may not do a
good job in a particular instance. The point is that,
*statistically*, things work out much, much better when rationality,
logic and reason are applied to a problem. Praying for water pipe
line to be built, is less successful than actually building one.
Doing tax revenue calculations for government spending is more
successful than believing the a god will provide. etc
How utterly lame. Religious people accomplish more real-world work
than unbelievers.
oh..like that the no atheists in foxholes shit?
You mean, because they are more of them Like, dah...
Please provide evidence that such work is done *because* they are religious,
rather than just happen to have a religious belief that is incidental to
their work.
I make no moral statements here. I am pointing out that religion hasThat's why we had Muslim and British empires, and
So, you are supporting mind control of the proletariat as a justification
for religion? Is this also a moral justification?
Oh, is Russia still a superpower?why the USA is now the only superpower, and Russia isn't.
Complete and utter nonsense.
They also used guns, newspapers, food, and pop music. Successful andReligion has
always been a powerful organizing force.
Only a few loonies pray for
pipelines to be built by God; historically, great works were built by
believers.
And great works were built by non believers, whats your point?
People used religion as a tool to rule other people, not because religion
itself is more useful intrinsically.
John
Survey: Most U.S. Scientists Don't Believe in God -
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000068.html
"A survey in mid-1998 found that 93% of U.S. scientists do not profess
belief in God, and 92.1 percent do not profess belief in immortality".
"A survey conducted in mid-1998, reported by Edward J. Larson of the
University of Georgia in a letter to the journal Nature, indicates that very
few senior scientists in the United States profess a belief in God or
immortality.
Larson said the survey asked members of the National Academy of Sciences to
indicate if they believe, disbelieve or are agnostic regarding the existence
of God and immortality. Overall, 93 percent of the scientists either
disbelieve or are agnostic on the existence of God (72.2 percent
disbelieve), while 92.1 percent disbelieve or are agnostic regarding
immortality (76.7 percent disbelieve)".
Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
The British Empire was based on TRADE, and things like port facilities notHow utterly lame. Religious people accomplish more real-world work
than unbelievers. That's why we had Muslim and British empires,
God help us !and why the USA is now the only superpower,
And unbelievers alike.great works were built by believers.
Religion is necessarily faith; few have actually seen their God,John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:58:53 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty.
[...]
Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers is unfit
to manage a dog show.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views. I suppose you think it's better to believe in nothing
than to believe in something.
There is a difference between a religion and a blind faith.
VLV
Who, unlike Mike Terrell's assertion WERE NOT being persecuted inJohn Fields wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views.
Oh.. .you are aware that some of those had strong anti-religious
views? I hope you are not one of those individuals under the
delusion that the US was founded as a christian country.
---
It wasn't founded as a Christian country, it was founded _by_
Christians.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
External schottkies across the body diodes?John Popelish wrote:
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
There is a difference between a religion and a blind faith.
Yep. The religions not based on blind faith in imaginary places, forces
and beings (and their imagined intentions) are quite different than the
ones that are.
To me, the main distinction is that the religion is aimed at oneself
whereas the faith is aimed at the others.
But, this all is stuff and nonsense. The main thing I have just launched
the 1.5kW DC-DC with the synchronous rectifier! It's 21:00 and I can go
home now.
I love the bit about not entering into any war or act of hostilityhttp://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
One function of religion is to enforce a set of socially-beneficialEeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views
Which proves the sum total of ZERO.
Only to small minds like yours. People of strong conviction left
Europe for America, to build the life they wanted, away from the forced
religions of Europe even though they knew there was a good chance they
wouldn't survive the trip, and that there weren't homes and jobs waiting
for them.
The word God appears in a lot of the founding documents, particularlyJohn Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:58:53 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty. It is
seriously frightening to even consider that she could be the boss
of the US. She is a women that likes to shop, expensively, that's
about it.
I am absolutely stunned by your view here John . Is this a wind up?
Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
What does "numpty" mean? She was a successful mayor and governor.
She's not a lawyer. She's bright, funny, and practical.
Joe Biden is a blowhard and a lunatic who can't keep his thoughts or
mouth under control. He makes up things that never happened and
steals shamelessly. His affect is hair plugs and botox. Like Obama,
he's a fake, an illusion. Sarah is real, the kind of person I'm
guessing you could trust. The US will trust Obama or Biden at its
great peril.
Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers
is unfit to manage a dog show.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views.
Oh.. .you are aware that some of those had strong anti-religious views? I
hope you are not one of those individuals under the delusion that the US was
founded as a christian country.
No, it's a key component of an orderly society and a successfulI suppose you think it's better to believe in nothing
than to believe in something.
Statistically, it is usually better to believe in nothing, than something is
it clearly false, imo. For example, if I believed that I could walk casually
across a busy LA freeway and not get ran over, chances are that not
believing that, would be preferential.
You can argue any way you like, but believing in imaginary supreme beings,
and taking action on such pathetic beliefs, is a recipe for disaster.
Creationism can be a valid scientific theory, but it flies in the face"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
You have
been told, over and over that there are three parts to the US
government, and that the US President does not have the power to force
any religion or religious issue on the country by themselves.
Teaching creationism sounds pretty much like forcing a single religion on children,
not to mention diminishing the value of science.
John Larkin wrote:
How utterly lame. Religious people accomplish more real-world work
than unbelievers. That's why we had Muslim and British empires,
The British Empire was based on TRADE, and things like port facilities not
religion.
and why the USA is now the only superpower,
God help us !
Graham
---John Larkin wrote:
How utterly lame. Religious people accomplish more real-world work
than unbelievers. That's why we had Muslim and British empires,
The British Empire was based on TRADE, and things like port facilities not
religion.
and why the USA is now the only superpower,
God help us !
---"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
I'll go further than that.
Any religious fundamentalist should be banned from holding public office along
with anyone with an IQ < 140. To hold public office all candidates must show
they have *contributed* to society in a postive way that required the unpaid
use of their time.
Once again you have gone beyond ignorant, right to stupid. You have
been told, over and over that there are three parts to the US
government, and that the US President does not have the power to force
any religion or religious issue on the country by themselves. It was
one of the worthless British royals who did it to you, because your form
of government is so weak.
Also political parties should be banned. All they do is attract similar types
of scum.
No wonder the you keep striking out with women, constantly harping
about things that don't concern you.
Ideally, govt should be run by proven engineers. We HAVE to make things work.
Ideally you would mind your own damn business.
So you're a lover of incompetents too ?
Does it really matter in the overall scheme of daily things and what reason isSo, where did the universe come from?
Ah, so you ADMIT you want an American Empire !"Kevin Aylward" wrote:
You can argue any way you like, but believing in imaginary supreme beings,
and taking action on such pathetic beliefs, is a recipe for disaster.
No, it's a key component of an orderly society and a successful
empire.
Where's the science ? The study, the development of a hypothesis and then a theory ?Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
You have
been told, over and over that there are three parts to the US
government, and that the US President does not have the power to force
any religion or religious issue on the country by themselves.
Teaching creationism sounds pretty much like forcing a single religion on children,
not to mention diminishing the value of science.
Creationism can be a valid scientific theory
The irony was intentional.Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
How utterly lame. Religious people accomplish more real-world work
than unbelievers. That's why we had Muslim and British empires,
The British Empire was based on TRADE, and things like port facilities not
religion.
and why the USA is now the only superpower,
God help us !
Praying for assistance? How touching.
The idea that life on Earth happened from inorganic sources isJohn Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
You have
been told, over and over that there are three parts to the US
government, and that the US President does not have the power to force
any religion or religious issue on the country by themselves.
Teaching creationism sounds pretty much like forcing a single religion on children,
not to mention diminishing the value of science.
Creationism can be a valid scientific theory
Where's the science ? The study, the development of a hypothesis and then a theory ?
Graham
Given that you have no theories about the origin of the universe, andJohn Larkin wrote:
So, where did the universe come from?
Does it really matter in the overall scheme of daily things and what reason is
there to believe that an old bloke in a cloak with a long beard did it ?
Graham