251. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #292140 by Roger Stanyard on November 27, 2008 at 4:50 am

Berstein says "You have evidence for this assertion?"

Just read the posts in this forum. Um, why don't you just ask some of the people affected whether they would be happier if gay marriage rights were available.

Or are you, as I suspect, so lacking in compassion and humanity that you are incapable of looking inside people's minds?

252. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #292136 by Roger Stanyard on November 27, 2008 at 4:47 am

Bersteain claims "I'm surprised the people on these boards take you seriously at all, Steve."

Unfortunately for you Bernstein, they do.

253. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #292133 by Roger Stanyard on November 27, 2008 at 4:46 am

Bersten comments on "People would be happier if we redefined it to include everyone who can validly consent."

It is self evidendently correct according to welfare critera.

254. £35,000 of taxpayers' cash given to 'atheist bus' group

Comment #292125 by Roger Stanyard on November 27, 2008 at 4:42 am

As already pointed out, the BHA is not an atheist organisation. It is a humanist organisation whose membership is open to the religious. IIRC, it does have senior members that are religious.

Moreover, it is about one of the least controversial organisations in Britain. Unless, of course, one thinks that belief in religion is entirely lacking in controversy amongst the religious.

255. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #292116 by Roger Stanyard on November 27, 2008 at 4:34 am

Bernstein - In a modern deomcractic society, marriage is not defined for us. We are free to chose whatever definition we want (or at least should be).

256. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #292103 by Roger Stanyard on November 27, 2008 at 4:26 am

Bernstean claims "The onus is on you because you want to redefine it."

Nope. I don't accept that the definition of marriage is soley between a man and a woman. So no redefinition is involved.

Moreover, as pointed out before, the Christian definition of marriage is irrelevent. Marriage is not defined by Christianity. It is a universal institution that existed long before Christianity and exists in all societies and cultures no matter what religion is practised.

For someone like me who is a non-believer, the Christian definition has nothing to do with me at all. I don't accept it and know of no reason why I should.

257. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #292095 by Roger Stanyard on November 27, 2008 at 4:21 am

Anvil says about me "Roger Stanyard stated in an earlier thread (sorry Roger if I got this wrong) that he couldn’t vote for a candidate in an election if he had a religious agenda, therefore he couldn’t, were he a citizen of the US, vote for Obama."

Yep, that's correct.

However, you missed that my position was even stronger. If a would-be politician feels the need to tell me what his/her religion is, then I won't vote for them. The matter goes well beyond whether they have a religious agenda.

It's as simple as this - I take the view that religion has no place in politics. It is a private matter. Politics is a public matter.

All I am calling for is a secular state, in practice, not in legal terms.

258. Why we believe in gods

Comment #291590 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Steve - Don't. You are one of the most level headed and brightest people on this forum.

Life is too short to bother about the insult you received.

259. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291579 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 2:14 pm

"Of course, when I say "our" I don't actually include me there....but you knew that already, didn't you? ;-)"

Goldy, given that you are a British ex-public school boy, nothing would surprise me.

260. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291560 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Frankus1122 - don't tell everyone here that I actually work for Pastor Fred. It breaks my cover.

261. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291546 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Re Westboro Fundies: "I really thought that was a spoof site, please tell me it is. "

Well, let me put it this way - Landover Baptist Church is somewhat more sucessful.

262. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291541 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 1:44 pm

DP, are you on the funny fags again tonight?: "Also, these people who fall in love with animals, which is usually horses for some reason, are not just bizarre but mentally damaged. These people actually believe they are in a relationship with the animal."

263. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291535 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Goldy - just because our chief God Botherer, the Archbishop of C not only looks like a Druid, but is one, it's no excuse to treat the Welsh the way you did.

264. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291520 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Goldy says "Last interspecies marriage I read about was in Sudan, I believe, between a man and a goat."

What about Wales and all those sheep? (ducks for cover.)

265. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291492 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Peacebeuponme says "What do you mean steve? Most avatars here seem entirely agreeable."

How kind. I'm flattered.

266. Just a little jab, won't hurt

Comment #291386 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 10:36 am

Shuggy " am currently exercised by how religious folk cope with the fact that there are so MANY varieties of religion, and all the people who belong to all the others seem to live very well, thank you, and be very nice people, even though they are going to the eternal torments of Hell. Don't religious folk ask themselves once in a while, "How is it that I was among the tiny minority to be so lucky as to be raised in the faith of the Reformed Right-with-God Paedobaptist Presbymormodists (Eastern), when all those others are damned?""

Splitters!!!

267. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291346 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 9:44 am

Bernstein one the one hand claims that "These may be genuine concerns by people who are not gay themselves." and then claims that in fact, they are just his own "Once again, I do have a mind of my own."

Try using it occasionally Bernstein.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts.

268. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291331 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 9:31 am

Bernstein, now what are you talking about?
How do we know, for instance, that they are not simply looking for another trophy with no regard for anyone's interests but their own? This might strike you as paranoid or homophobic (I've already been called that) but it isn't. These may be genuine concerns by people who are not gay themselves."

Except they were not. I have never seen any of the advocates of Proposition 8 argue this. Nor any of the opponenents of gay marriage. You just made that up with no evidence whatsoever and it shows.

"You should put yourself in their shoes every once in a while to gain some perspective."

We do. That's why we can see straight through your arguments.

269. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291327 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 9:26 am

thewhitepearl - http://mothwo.blogspot.com

You can also link to BCSE Revealed though his front page.

270. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291323 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 9:24 am

DP says nothing at all for no apparent reason: "Yep I am on that kool aid again because I am right. Who are gays asking to let them get married: people or government? They are asking people to tell the government to let them get married. Two points for conservatism."

271. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291321 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 9:22 am

Quez says "I left a comment on your buddy's blog yesterday, hasn't come up yet."

It doesn't surprise me. In the past he has monitored my posts on this forum and then used them to claim that I am a fraud/no-gooder/stupid/evilutionist/atheist or whatever.

He is probably now monitoring this thread as well.

He's in a dangerous position nowadays because he is not backed by his unnamed pals and, at the end of the day, we beat the shit out of him and fucked up his cause.

It would not, though, surprise me that he starts bragging that, because I post in this thread, that he has "found out" that I am gay.

(I'm not, btw, but so what?)

He's a pulpit bully who doesn't like people answering back to him. Hence no comment from you on his blog.

Same style as Bill Dembski with Uncommon Descent.

272. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291306 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 9:11 am

DP on the Kool Aid again today "I see it more of a problem with government than religion....It starts to matter when government actually has the power to implement their ridiculous views."

273. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291304 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 9:09 am

DP says "She is also very liberal, except with this issue."

So you haven't told her that you think all liberals should be locked up in concentration camps?

274. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291154 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 6:57 am

Berstein states: "You know, in some parts of the world, certain forms of discrimination are not only condoned, but even deemed necessary."

Oh, go one, do tell us what discrimination you therefore condone.

"How, exactly, you guys seem to have everything so clear-cut and all figured out is obviously beyond me."

Sounds like. Perhaps you might sooner or later figure out that it has been an issue for years and years and some in here are not only very knowledgable about it but have spent an inordinate amount of time (over decades) coming to their position.

How much time and effort have you spent coming to your position.

"Perhaps you think we are living in a perfect world? Or are seriously trying to make it perfect? Create, as it were, a Utopia."


This is bog standard wingnut crapola "Liberals want a utopia and are thefore stupid".

Who the heck in here has ever even hinted at aiming for a utopia?

Hell's Bells, I've spent the last few years showing that the fundies are bonkers because they think a utopia is gonna happen.

275. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291145 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 6:47 am

Bernstein - yes it is axiomatic.

How many more times to I have to tell you that?

276. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291129 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 6:36 am

Berstein says "It's not necessarily that homosexuals deserve equal rights in every conceivable respect."

Oh, that's intersting. let's just play with the satement slightly:

"It's not necessarily that heterosexuals deserve equal rights in every conceivable respect."

"It's not necessarily that working class people deserve equal rights in every conceivable respect."

"It's not necessarily that jews deserve equal rights in every conceivable respect."

"It's not necessarily that women deserve equal rights in every conceivable respect."

"It's not necessarily that slaves deserve equal rights in every conceivable respect."

"It's not necessarily that atheists deserve equal rights in every conceivable respect."

"It's not necessarily that [insert name of any group you can think of here] deserve equal rights in every conceivable respect."

Go on then Berstein, list the rights all of us don't deserve.

Better still, list the rights that you think you don't deserve.

277. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291107 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 6:11 am

CapatinMandate says "the obsession with sex is what's behind the prop..."

Yep. Moreover, the Abrahamic religions have enormous hangups about sex. In a freudian sense I guess that the more fundamentalist the position is, the greater the hangup. Sex threatens them because they think it evil.

The thought has entered by wicked head that fundies are,in fact, militant Darwinists who see sex as nothing more than a baby making process.

278. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291094 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 5:58 am

Steve - I'm not sure that the whole issue is about "rationality". It seems to me it is the oldest political game in the book - the desire for equal rights. As I say, I take it from a political perspective.

This is the same game that was fought out over democracy in ancient Greece, the same game that Spartacus fought, the same game over religious freedom in the 17th century, the same game in extending the franchise in the 18th and 19th century, the same game that Emily Pankhurst fought, the same game as civil rights in the 1960s....

Maybe I am naive but if gay people want the right to marry, they should have it by just asking. The objections are just waffle (as you can see from Bernstein).

279. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291020 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 5:02 am

Bersten says "I don't think it's worth redefining marriage just to accommodate a homosexual desire."

Not so far short of "I don't think it's worth defining marriage just to accommodate a heterosexual desire."

280. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291008 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 4:47 am

Steve says "You never did state any ramifications, potential or otherwise."

It sends fundies apeshit! (evil grin)

281. Single-Celled Giant Upends Early Evolution

Comment #290993 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 4:33 am

Dispiracist - fossils of large multi-cellular animals from the pre-Cambrian do exist. I've seen photos of chordates from the pre-Cambrian, for example.

282. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290984 by Roger Stanyard on November 26, 2008 at 4:21 am

Proposition 8 is a threat to all of us, whether we are gay or not. It is an organised and systemaytic attempt by the religious right to impose its definition of marriage on society.

Marriage is NOT a christian institution, It is universal to mankind. Claiming that the Bible prohibits same sex marriage is irrelevent in a secular state. It's a fundamental and basic human right that we can marry whoever we want, regardless of other people's religious opinions. Full stop. Proposition 8 openly and explictly denies basic human rights.

It says that religious "law" should over-ride the negotiated and debated law of an open democracy. It is theocracy in another name.

Where the heck does anyone think the money came from to push Proposition 8.

The whole language of the Christian right on this issue is just racism with the words changed. For years state after sate in the USA, and South Africa, banned inter-racial marriage. Much of the language in doing so was based on religion - Ham, etc..

The fundamentalists lost the battle over racism so they have just switched the target to gays.

Worse still, the wingnuts will try to continue "banning" certain other forms of marriage. We've already seen this in the UK where immmigrants' wives are not allow to enter the UK. It's only one step away from restricting or banning marriage with foreigners.


The fundamentalists in the USA do not believe in democracy. They believe that their world-view is right because it is ordained by God and therefore should be imposed on the rest of society. Their objective is a theocracy with them in charge.

I note that Howie Ahmanson put up vast amounts to support Proposition 8. Well, he has been funding the call for theocracy for years - including the execution of gays (and anybody else who objects to his religious opinions).

Strange, isn't it that he is also the biggest backer of the Discovery Institute which claims it has nothing to do with religion - no siree Bob.

Proposition 8 is an attempt at social re-engineer on religious grounds, exactly the same as the DI's objective (see The Wedge Document).

So, Bernstein, which side of the fence are you on?

283. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290656 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Corlus - thanks for that. Here is the vacuous contents -

"Professor Dawkins,

You have been blessed with a great brain, and led a productive and privilege life. Congratulations on reaching 66 years old.

The days you have remaining are now far dwarfed by those that are gone. Soon, you will no longer be able to hide behind the vacuous excuses for rebellion against your maker. I urge you to stop the madness, and seek the Lord whilst you can.

Kind regards,
David"

The arrogance is truely astonishing.

Still, from memory this is not the first one he sent to Richard. IIRC, he sent one on Richard's 65th birthday. IIRC it was in PDF form.

So poor old Richard is no doubt gonna get another birthday card every year from the vacuous nutter until he (Richard) dies.

One wonders who the paymaster of the fraudulent pulpit bully is.

284. Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million

Comment #290561 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Well if we can produce a Neanderthal, what happens if he/she turns out to be gay?

And wants a modern human as a partner?

The fundies will have field day on this. "Liberal commie scientists produce gay frankensteins to destroy marriage by god fearing hayseeds"?

"No rights for Neanderthals"!

Good grief - what happens if the modern Neanderthals all think religion is stupid? Or they all start worshipping RD?

285. Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million

Comment #290557 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Epeeist "The genome for Neanderthals could be recovered soon - should we regenerate one of those?"

Um, sounds like there would be huge ethical problems here. Presumably we would be creating something that we would have to keep in physical isolation to stop contact with diseases carried by us.

What are we gonna feed it on before weening- milk from modern homo sapiens? What are the consequences of that?

What happens when she/he turns sexual at puberty? Let he/she take a modern partner?

Sounds like a recipe for horrific cruelty - a freak show.

286. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290549 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Baron - "I couldn't move for the strawmen."

Yes, absolute drivel, isn't it!

The bloke is a complete wackjob.

He claims to be a scientist but his only "training" in biology was a course on statistics which used data from biology.

Someweher on this (RD.net) web site is the birthday card he sent to Richard, telling Richard to "repent".

It isn't difficult to imagine Richard's eyes rolling when he received the card.

Richard thinks he is a twerp. Still, he's got a post grad qualification from Oxford (Masters, maths).

Anderson is, of course, a fundie. he is a member of an ultra-evengelical and obscure Baptist sect.

What we can't work out is whether he acted as front man for Truth in Science (aka Pack of Lies in Science) or Answers in Genesis (UK) or both. We know, however, that AiG turned up in Belper, where he was then a trainee pastor, some four or so weeks before he launched BCSE Revealed.

What I am pretty certain about is that he neither researched nor wrote the BCSE Revealed blog and web site on his own.

Incidentally, BCSE Revealed is full of lies, distortions and half truths. It is very libelous. The local police in my part of the world laughed at him when he tried to get me "investigated" (for what we will probably never know).

An interesting point is that we cannot trace who is currently hosting BCSE Revealed. It appears to be a fundamentalist organisation but we can't find any details. It was originally hosted on the same server, IIRC, as Truth in Science.

287. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290542 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 11:54 am

Quetzalcoatl - Alas I am "banned" from his blog, it appears.

He has a severe problem in answering my repeated questions. Presumably he has been told by his former creationist paymasters to keep his mouth shut.

You might, er, want to ask him a few questions yourself, such as who is paying for the hosting of the BCSE Revealed web site and blog.

No answer from him indicates that he has something to hide.

288. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290534 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 11:36 am

Rachel - IIRC the Church of England does not recognise hell and hasn't since the 1920s.

289. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290529 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 11:32 am

Um, some in here concerned about gay rights might be interested to learn that my, er, long-standing and delightful pal, Pastor David Anderson, has outed himself.

As a homophobe. See http://mothwo.blogspot.com/

All About Pastor David Anderson

David is, of course, a famous alumni of Oxford University who went on to take his BA (Bombay) (Fail) in theology from the same bible studies school as Ian "the Mouth" Paisley.

His career to date has included extensive experience of hiring a drill hall in Belper, Derbyshire.

Pastor David, who has a serious speech impediment when it comes to telling the world whether he has acted for the creationist movement in Britain, is currently, so he says, a logician and missionary in Kenya, where he is thinking of showing his tiny children live animals having their heads hacked off.

David has also let it be known that his hobbies including hating other Christians he doesn't agree with.

When not relieving the white man of his burden and saving souls, David's favourite pastime is destroying evolutionary biology on his internationally acclaimed science blog (nearly two hits so far this year).

David is a great fan of Richard Dawkins and has corresponded with him on the professor's birthday. His internationally acclaimed video, produced in conjunction with William Hague MP, has achieved widespread recognition amongst refuse disposal officers world-wide.

He is currently married with three children and an enormous chip on his shoulder about elites.

Additional information for editors: Rabies is endemic in Kenya.

290. Letter to the European Parliament on Turkey's banning of RichardDawkins.net

Comment #290514 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 10:00 am

"There are 9 MEPs for London. Taking just the first one, Batten, the UKIP member, he has raised the issue of funding for religious groups by the European Institutions a few times. Reasons to be cheerful!"

Reason to be careful as well. The former head of UKIP is a creationist (religious extremist). He was one the BCSE web site a couple of years back. Mad as a hatter.


There are also too many membership ties between UKIP and the BNP to trust UKIP. If I remember correctly, Stephen Green has ties with UKIP.

291. Letter to the European Parliament on Turkey's banning of RichardDawkins.net

Comment #290511 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 9:55 am

Philster says "No offence to secular Turks but theres more than enough problems with the Muslims that are already here without adding to it."

Hang on - Turks have been employed and lived in Germany in vast numbers since the 1950s. What's the problem with them? (It's a very serious question.)

Your position smacks of the same attitude as American fundies and wingnuts who think Europe is being "over-run" with Muslims. It's basically racism written in another way and idiotically stupid as well.

Religious belief in Western Europe is dying and that includes Islam.

Moreover, Turks are simply not extreme when it comes to Islam.

The Oktar business is about a civil legal case in Turkey. It is essentially about libel. As a Brit it would be stunnin g hypocracy of me to criticise Turkish law on this matter given the absurdities of British libel laws which are a serious impediment to free speech.

Yep, I have been threatened with libel action under British law - by none other than an enourmously fat crook. Robert Maxwell.

292. We can't hide in our labs and leave the talking to Dawkins

Comment #290503 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 9:32 am

Irate - that's far too glib. Would you consider someone with just A levels or just a degree to be well eecuated? Does it need post-grad to be in that league and if so to what level? How far does experience in the university of life count as education? Is an education from Eton better than from a comprehensive (think about that)?

I've met people with just an O level who have a far broader knowledge than another I recall from an expensive public school with a degree.

Seems to me that a mark of a good education whether or not you apply and extend it after receiving the formal qualifications.

Likewise with the timing of the education. It's a pretty standard view that the later in life one finishes formal education, the easier it is to continue learning through the rest of one's life.

293. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #290496 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 9:22 am

Severalspecies of "Let's see if that works...

DP can supernatural with regard to economics...

hmmm...

needs work..."

You are very cruel in taking the p**s out of DP!

I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing to a man of his obvious talents in economics and politics.

294. We can't hide in our labs and leave the talking to Dawkins

Comment #290491 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 9:17 am

Irate "This very much depends on your definition of educated."

I haven't got one. It's a bit like asking how long is a piece of string.

295. We can't hide in our labs and leave the talking to Dawkins

Comment #290443 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 7:30 am

Lucas - the point that I am trying to get across is that it is not a good idea for any of us to start accusing the public in general of being ignorant.

In dealing with the fundies, it back fires. Basically the argument back is that scientists are in no position to make their claims against cretinists because they themselves are ignorant.

A lot of the public are not going listen if they are accused of being ignorant. It's lose use of language and, indeed, insulting to many members of the public as it smacks of elitism.

The fundies love to use the terms elitism, elites, etc. to disparage science and the educated.

Let me put it another way, I suspect few in here would call "the public" uneducated. The implication of calling the public ignorant is bsically perceived by the public as one and the same.

296. We can't hide in our labs and leave the talking to Dawkins

Comment #290433 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 7:03 am

Ishruul says "Everyone is ignorant and as a whole, we're not much better."

Who's we?

297. We can't hide in our labs and leave the talking to Dawkins

Comment #290425 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 6:35 am

Ishruul says "We live in the first century where we discover how to better our live and not just survive. We can now look at an disease and find a cure, not pray for Bearded_Grandpa-McCloud to heal us."

The first century??????

That's not my understanding of the history of human efforts.

298. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290416 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 6:12 am

Steve says "I agree that deconversion can be useful, but the amount of effort required to do it on any mass scale would be huge, whereas we know that improving education (a worthy goal) does the job anyway."

Focus where most effective.

When it comes to a cause, catch them when they are young.

That's the way religion works in spreading its meme.

It's what is happening anyway. It's the young that have been and are turning away from religion.

Seems to me there is little point targeting the older groups and, in any case, they are going to die off sooner rather than later.

Demographics are working against religion - just as they have worked against racism, homophobia, anti-feminism, fascism.....

I'm not so sure though about the fundie memes.

299. We can't hide in our labs and leave the talking to Dawkins

Comment #290408 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 5:53 am

Irate says "I am a member of the public. There are a great many things of which I am ignorant."

So what's your definition of ignorance? Is it the ignorance of the polymath who does not understand in any great depth or the ignorance of the specialist with little knowledge outside of his core expertise?

Seems to me that most people are a cross between the two. Moreover, one of the greatest virtues of education is knowing our limitations and getting round them. We may be ignorant in knowledge terms but we have the tools to severely limit that problem. Ignorance is thus not the same as stupidity.

The whole of scientific research is completly based on scientists being ignorant.

300. We can't hide in our labs and leave the talking to Dawkins

Comment #290380 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 4:34 am

BobbyWoodRuff "Because a scientists views on any subject are (at least) as valid as a priest or rabbi or imam, all of whom are invited to comment on subjects on which thay have no expertise?"

That's simply just wrong. Having worked with clerics in the anti-creation arena they do have areas of expertise. Your argument is arrogant, facile, ignorant and dangerous.

It's about as stupid as claiming that all scientists are atheists.

If you want to pick a fight with religion, rule number 1 is "never underestimate your opposition".

You just have. You fail.