Skashion
Well-Known Member
DO NOT FEED TROLLS.
SWP's back said:As I have said, Christianity has no monopoly on those values. In fact I'd rather side with Islam or Hinduism ahead of Christianity on that.Gillespie said:SWP's back said:Is it hell as like a nonsequitur. It shows that as education increases, faith decreases across a populace. I can pull all sorts of studies off the bet for that one if needs be. (Currently awaiting a client in a coffee house so on my phone).
But anyway, in your post, you have agreed with my first point, a church delegation are no more important than anyone else.
I still don't see why anyone should show more tolerance to a group, just because it is popular though. In your warped logic, it probably makes sense, but I as repeatedly state, I don't accept anything just because it is popular.
So, your theory is that faith decreases as education increases? And to support this you state:
' Although 80% of Americans are religious against 18% of American scientists.'
It doesn't really explain how 80% of Americans (who are comparatively well educated)are religious, does it? As for 18% of Americans being scientists, assuming that's true, I don't see the relevance frankly which is why I rightly called it a non sequitur. You sound like someone who has just read a bluffers guide to rhetoric but failed to read one on logic. You clearly cannot discriminate between correlation and causation.
Good for you again banging on about how steadfast you are in your own beliefs regardless of how unpopular they might be. All irrelevant stuff. None of this is about popularity or unpopularity. It's about having decency in being able to tolerate your fellow man regardless of their views.
My point in showing tolerance to those who have beliefs you don't share is that it's a mark of decency and being civilised. Christian values of respect, compassion and tolerance. The fact that there are those who commit atrocities in the name of faith doesn't change the basic values taught by Christ. By all means condemn the sinner but not the lesson.
And where have I ever said I don't "tolerate" someone if they are religious? That's your strawman you fucking idiot.
-- Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:06 pm --
Gillespie said:aguero93:20 said:Stopped reading after that mate, their overall education levels are astoundingly bad.
As compared to whom? I trust you can't be suggesting that somehow our state educational standards are any better?
Oh yes, very well educated:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/one-third-americans-dont-believe-in-evolution/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/ ... evolution/</a>
-- Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:07 pm --
Ah I finally get it. You are just a **** on the WUM. No one could actually believe that bullshit (you right wing nut job)Gillespie said:Thank heavens for Gove and academies trying to apply discipline and more rigorous teaching to improve standards.
-- Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:09 pm --
1. I find you a complete twuntGillespie said:gordondaviesmoustache said:The debate calls for a Venn Diagram.
Quite right!
On a serious note and to end this debate, my argument can be summed up as
1. Intolerance of people who have faith shows a lack of human compassion and is morally repugnant.
2. I see no reason why science should be in conflict with religion and at least 18% of American scientists would agree with me.
2. 82% would disagree
Gillespie said:Thank heavens for Gove and academies trying to apply discipline and more rigorous teaching to improve standards.
Rascal said:Im sure I just saw Swps back call someone a right wing nutjob.
Wow
Gillespie said:My you are a very rude man.
Do you have anger management issues?
I suspect you score highly on Hare's list.
stony said:Gillespie said:Thank heavens for Gove and academies trying to apply discipline and more rigorous teaching to improve standards.
That is quite possibly one of the most ill informed and offensive posts I've ever seen on here.