Hate as a Business Model

milkboys Articles, News 39 Comments

Freedom is a precious thing but some people have a rather peculiar idea of what exactly freedom is. For them freedom means they should be free to decide who they can discriminate against, who they can bully, whose freedom they can take away.

Recently several US states introduced so called “religious freedom” bills that were supposedly meant to make sure that the citizens of those states can practise their religions freely. This becomes a problem though when someone’s religion says that being Lesbian, Gay, Bi or Transgender is wrong, a sin even. In that case these bills enable religious people and businesses to discriminate against queer people so we end up with less, not more, freedom.

“Critics of religious freedom laws need perspective, at least gays aren’t executed” — US Senator Tom Cotton

Maybe even worse are cynical business owners who take this opportunity to make a quick buck with their hate for queer folks. Like the owners of Memories Pizza in Indiana who received a mind-boggling $800,000 in donations for their public statement that they would not cater pizzas for a gay wedding–as if any of us would have a taste bad enough to consider pizzas as an option for a wedding anyway. All thanks to a donation rally on the website GoFundMe. On the same website fundraisers for cancer patients and the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing received a lot less money.

In other states refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation is still not legal but that doesn’t keep some business owners from turning their hate into cash. A florist in Washington who didn’t want to have anything to do with the queers was fined $1,000 but is now $100,000 richer after asking for donations.

Comments 39

  1. What is absurd is that all the religious freedom that they need is guaranteed in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Idiots, a bunch of yahoo idiots electing like minded idiots.

  2. Ah, yes, “religious freedom[s],” the latest religious illogical buzzwords in the attempt to fight the reasoned, intelligent societies. Their religious creed should be, “if we lose with one buzzword (or phrase), then let’s continue the fight [with tax payers’ dollars] with even more stupid ones.”

    They are so fucking frustrated after losing every single legal battle they fight (eventually, at the higher levels all the way to the Supreme Court), they now have to make up laws for made up “freedom losses” that they’ve never incurred. And, of course, they’re so pissed that they can’t (and won’t) win the same-sex marriage State battles. [April 28 has been scheduled to hear oral arguments in SCOTUS for this, and it’s widely predicted that SCOTUS will return June 30 with a 6-3 or even a very possible 7-2 Opinion in favor of same-sex marriage.]

    I’ve just finished reading a very good book** that has put this and all previous fights by the evangelicals/fundamentalists in proper perspective. The religious can’t even accept defeat when it’s been handed out by a Republican, conservative, religious judge that their favorite son, George W. Bush, personally appointed to the bench. After the resounding Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover, PA School District defeat, they instantly labeled this judge as “activist” and “overstepping his boundary” by declaring that “intelligent design” [sic] was not any science, but a narrow religious view, even after specifically requesting this very thing during the trial’s Discovery.

    So, now, they seem to be left with their only “recourse” and create these new “religious freedom[s]” laws to continue their struggle to get “god”, religion, et al somehow embedded into our legal system. And the backlash has been so severe for Indiana (and also Arkansas, which the Republican Governor’s son even requested his father to not sign the law) that they’ve had to “water down” these very obvious discriminatory State laws to match the 1993 Federal law that Clinton signed. So, it begs the obvious question, what is the real purpose of these laws if it’s already on the Federal books?

    .

    ** But Is It Science? — The Philosophical Question In The Creation/Evolution Controversy Edited by Robert T. Pennock and Michael Ruse [both expert witness in the Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover, PA School District Federal trial]

    1. I think the purpose has nothing to do with the laws, what they purport to do, or not do, or fix, or not fix … their sole purpose is for right wingers to stir up the knuckle-draggers so that they’ll get (re-)elected. That’s it, that’s all. The ones putting up the laws most likely couldn’t care less what the consequences may or may not be. It’s merely another arrow in their quiver of reprehensible tactics for gaining or retaining power.

      In most cases looking at that basic issue (will “this” get me votes) explains most of what a politician does. Tends to suggest that counting the runny noses of cretins is perhaps not the best way to run a society.

      Not to suggest that the other side of the political spectrum is much better btw.

      1. @TigerPaw

        “”Not to suggest that the other side of the political spectrum is much better btw.””

        Actually, they are both identical but isn’t true that there have been more republicans caught with their pants down when not tap dancing in stalls? LOL

  3. I have to admit I just read the Tom Cotton quote,only that, which . . . I really can’t take it any more. I used to make a point of reading every article gleaned for us on the home page, but I have become whatever the opposite of immune is to the steady diet of one example after another of shitpeople and their hate.
    I’m glad YOU’RE here Penboy <3. You pretty much say what I'd say if i had your stamina.

  4. The memories of growing up in Canada when they decided to put the marriage stuff. I’ve literally had the “Quit defending yourself” statement a few times. =/

    While the comic is a great political piece; it is a bit of a painful reminder. Up to a point, I actually agree with the Religious freedoms bill in regards to letting people practice their religion; as it can be the easiest way to not get into even worse situations.

    The problem of course is specifically where you end up having to draw the line; telling people that you will only go so far.

  5. As a counter point to Cotton I offer this for your consideration.= http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/read-what-christian-pastor-promises-do-if-his-children-are-gay270914

    I’m an atheist. My opinion of religion(s) is well known. Yet, that pastor is someone that I would have no shame in meeting or even offering support.

    Now lets start a firestorm!

    Penboy, I’m a bit at a loss as to what side to take about religious freedoms. Why you may ask? Because it’s so much more than about religion. It really does come down to freedom.Freedom of what? How about the right to chose with whom I want to interact with? Let’s say I think that democrats are immoral people, do I have the right to refuse to do business with them? How about if they are republicans, communists, pastafarians! I do understand that discrimination isn’t a good thing but is there such a thing as “rightful” discrimination, either religiously based or ideologically based?

    1. @ Old Dan: Thank you for your link to the story on GAYSTARNEWS. It’s nice to see a religious leader who for once isn’t spouting homophobic hate. It’s very well written,and he very clearly articulates how people should love their children, no matter what their orientation might be. Here’s a link to the original article:

      http://johnpavlovitz.com/2014/09/17/if-i-have-gay-children-four-promises-from-a-christian-pastorparent/

      Whether one considers themselves to be atheist, agnostic or religious, I don’t really care as long as they’re tolerant and respectful of others.

  6. Just noticed something. Anyone gave a close look at that cartoon? It’s fascinating.

    Look to the lower right. You will see a kid that looks bewildered by what is happening. He’s not shown with hate or even anger in his face. Fear maybe? Meanwhile the way his mother holds that bible is telling about her god. It’s upside down. Look at the cross on it.

  7. As far as I’m concerned, people are free to believe in whatever religion they wish to follow. I would never tell someone that was something they couldn’t do.
    However, this only is valid if they keep that religious belief private (unless questioned or discussing something which includes it) and to only practice said belief at home or in their religious building.
    What I will never, ever, tolerate, is the continuous efforts of the religious to force that religion onto other people and onto society as a whole. This isn’t the bronze age anymore, we have science, we have legal systems, we have democracies and we hopefully have common sense.
    We no longer need religion poisoning everything because its followers feel the need to spread it to everyone else. They don’t do this because they care or because they are loving. They do this because their religious beliefs justifies their prejudices and gives them a feeling of superiority over others.
    Organised religion has far too much blood on its hands and should be left where it belongs, in the past. Every war that is justified or augmented by religion is a stain upon every believer of said religion. Every young person in the West who kills themselves for being gay because of Christianity is a damning indictment against all those who support the church.
    The religious texts can be a literal call for such blood to be spilled and other texts can be twisted to suit whatever agenda people choose. It’s about time we all started living in the 21st Century.
    It’s up to the religious leaders to put things right. It’s about time they paid back the horrendous debt they have incurred over the years with all the hatred, pain, death and misery caused in the name of their religion. If they don’t do that, if they don’t do their absolute best to put things right, then they are no better than any other spiteful religious maverick.

    1. Does this means that people should be made to live their religion only in private and never live it openly?

      Just so you and others know, I’m approaching this more as a philosophical discussion. It’s not about justifying bigotry, but then could one say that bigotry is in the eye of the beholder?

      1. I think you’ll find I wasn’t advocating the censorship of people’s beliefs.
        It also depends what you mean by living their religion openly. Christians can wear their crosses, they can speak of their religion just like with any other opinion or belief.
        I draw the line when it is brought into schools, especially in increasingly multicultural societies. I also draw the line at it being included within the laws of the country. A wall of secularism should always be present.
        I also draw the line when religion is used as justification for hatred and bullying. Freedom of belief will never mean freedom to hurt others because of your beliefs.

    2. Errrr no actually. I know plenty of gay priests and musicians in the UK and I can’t remember the last time a kid here killed himself over his sexuality. I know that a lot of artistic boys in the C of E such as Choristers are or end up being gay and contribute to the life of the church. I could mention dozens of names in the music side of things but will keep schtum as dunno the organists etc are out or not officially even though their sexuality is common knowledge. I know a friend of mine Kris Thomsett the organ scholar of Salisbury Cathedral and is much loved there. Geoffrey John the Dean of St Albans is also gay. Plus the Episcopal Church in the US is even more liberal (unusually for the US) than the UK Anglican Church. I really resent it when people for their own agendas lump all Christians into one when they are really talking mainly of fundamentalist Baptists. It’s like saying all Jewish worshippers are the same: Reform and Ultra Orthodox: intellectually lazy, disingenuous and plain wrong

      1. That doesn’t take away from the fact that a lot of this hatred is justified by the religious texts themselves.
        Followers of the religion have to read said texts and follow them. Due to the likes of the Bible having been written 2000 years ago, many of the laws and customs (especially that of the OT) have since been ignored or forgotten about. However, many others haven’t been. That’s the problem with organised religion, there are too many different sects and churches. Everyone has their own version, it would seem.
        This is precisely why I have said it is the responsibility of the religious leaders to step forward. They are leaders for a reason, so if anyone should be involved in modernising the religions of the world it is them. The religious voice for freedom and equality should be deafening in comparison to the religious voice for oppression and inequality.
        There are too many Sunday Christians from what I’ve seen. Last week was the Holy Week here in Spain. I watched literally hundreds of Christians watch the religious procession as it went down the street, all of them turning their backs to a homeless man who lay on the street.
        I see that sort of behavior often. One side of my family are strong Catholics and I’ve had many an argument with them over equal rights.
        Two of my closest friends were forced out of their homes by their loving, Christian parents who resented them for being gay/bi respectively.
        Like I said, religions need to be modernised and be more about doing the right thing rather than singing hymns from time to time.

      2. @fini:
        re: gays / “I really resent it when people for their own agendas lump all Christians into one when they are really talking mainly of fundamentalist Baptists.”

        First, Sarcosuchas said it very well with: “That doesn’t take away from the fact that a lot of this hatred is justified by the religious texts themselves.”

        It’s a hell of a lot more than just “fundamentalist Baptists” that are against homosexuality. What about the catholics and their views on same-sex marriage (it’s the very same thing, just dressed in a different cloak)? I don’t care which demonination you wish to refer to, they’re all the same. Until they exit their churches and start marching in “gay parades” for total equality in all aspects of their lives [including all gays] and societies, then they’re all guilty of the very same thing (again, just different cloaks).

        You should watch this video: Re: Real Talk On Homosexuality
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_vvmscy03Y

        He sums up the whole gay/religious situation (and he’s straight, too!).

        .

        But it’s not just the homophobia that needs changing/eliminating by the religious. What gets me going even more than anything else are the constant, repeating LIES that they keep festering on every society about “god”, “jesus christ” and all the other characters: “moses, noah, all the disciples, etc” — they’re toally FALSE and FABRICATED just to get everyone to believe all that crap. (I just love how “noah” was “eaten by a big fish” for 3 days and comes out alive as if nothing happened) There has NEVER been any empiracle evidence of any kind to “prove” any of these characters ever existed. If you say there is, then you’re a liar just like all the rest of that ilk.

        You say you’re a “christian” — why? Just so that you “receive” this bullshit called “everlasting life”? In what fucking body are you going to have this “life”? The most probably decrepit one you’ll have after 70-80+ years of living on this Earth, the one which will be diseased and crippled to the point of ….. what? What exactly do you expect to do with this “everlasting life” in a decrepit body (that’s really only good for maggot food)?

    3. @Sarcosuchas

      Asking a religion, any religion to join the 21rst century is like asking that the moon lands on Earth so we could walk on it without using rockets to get there. No matter what religion, they all belong to the stone age.

      Here’s a pont to be made about religions. The further back in time we look the bloodier they are. Asking for human sacrifice is normal business. Then, as time go by, they get less bloody. But then, lets ignore religious wars for the moment and stick to the bloody part. Today, “officially” no religion demands human sacrifice. Seems their gods don’t demand it anymore. One could say that gods get more civilized over time, at the same time societies get more civilized. If their god were real they would still be demanding for the blood and guts they demanded of cave dwellers. I say that this shows gods to be a human construct.

      1. Absolutely right. God was made by man for the purpose of control and to give explanations to things they did not understand.
        And yes, a religion will dilute itself as society advances, hence why I say the responsibility is upon the religious leaders to speed up this process with their religions.

  8. This only seems to happen in the US which is a pretty fucked up society in general in my opinion. The easy answer is to have decent ingrained Human Rights laws. Here im Europe we have the ECHR (under the Human Rights Act here in the UK which the Tories want to get rid of) Article 9 (2) ECHR states that ”

    Freedom to manifest ones religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations such are proscribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others”

    There is Article 14 anti discrimination law, there is the British Equality Act that forbids Homophobia too. Thing is that despite being under a Tory government now (hopefully not for much longer) Britain is socially progressive whereas to me the US is not. I am a Christian but the Christianity often preached in the US: the bigotry, the shyster televangelists preaching their fake, selective prosperity gospel etc is something I do not associate with. On a more up eat note a buddy of mine on a gay irc chat from San Fransisco says his Roman Catholic Bishop is in favour of gay marriage so despite tarring everyone with the same brush not all US Christans are homophobic. I read that one church in Indiana has had to close after the congregation boycotted it after the sacking of their gay music director.

  9. To simplify things you can’t have rights without responibilities to the cohesion of society as a whole. If you want to blame anybody for the kind of mess this article describes blame the legislators.

  10. P.P.S if anyone wants to read a thoroughly human and often funny account have a look at ” Diary of a Gay Priest: The Tightrope Walker” by Malcolm Johnston.

  11. First and foremost there was a response to the donors: http://www.gofundme.com/lgbtIN

    This is the 2nd oldest LGBT youth group in the US…I know because I was the Exec Dir there for a while. And what was amazing is most of our funding came from research grants, and we found year after year that suicidality dropped from 60% to 10% just by participating in the group…so its an amazing group (haven’t worked there in over a decade).

    Second, my poor mother in law is great at telling me what Fox News is telling people to believe. She just keeps saying how Christian business owners are the victims here. When I ask her to tell me if Christian business owners should turn away 2nd marriage customers…she goes to “a Christian baker should not have to bake a gay cake,” to which I say, fine, what is the line? A cake? A taxi ride? Care at a privately owned urgent care clinic? What is the line? The conversation ends because ultimately these bigots can’t think past the latest Fox News bumper sticker.

  12. Lots of good comments here. Personally I’m not that opposed to their ill-conceived legislation. I rather think it’ll come back to bite them in the ass. I was reminded of ‘the soup nazi’ from Seinfeld. Piss off the soup nazi, NO SOUP FOR YOU TODAY. COME BACK TOMORROW. NEXT!

    Of course it was humourous, but in real life, not so practical. As a business, if you announce you hate a certain group of people as in chick fill eh ( or whatever their name is ), or refuse to do business with anyone because you don’t like them, it’s your loss. If I’m badly treated or refused service from a retailer or any other business, I’ll go down the street to the next place with my ‘gay dollars’. Screw them.

    1. Exactly and if local gays feel strongly enough they can always picket the business. No business likes a fuss.

  13. @fini (and others just like him):
    “I am a Christian but the Christianity often preached in the US: the bigotry, the shyster televangelists preaching their fake, selective prosperity gospel etc is something I do not associate with.”

    Don’t look now, but that’s that’s exactly what you are associated with if you claim yourself as belief of or part of any “christian”, “judaism”, “islam”, “mormom” or any other theistic religion. Why is this? Simple. There is NO “god” or was no [true, historical] “jesus christ”. How do I know this? Again, simple: I’ve actually read enough of the bible to determine what is truth and what is bullshit. At least 95% (easily) of people who say they’ve “read the bible” are in fact, liars (or they’re so incredibly stupid they have no comprehension of what is in that book). No, what these people have done is listen to some equally ignorant “pastor/priest/preacher/iman” (or whatever) tell them what they think the populace “needs to know”.

    Any person with even minimal intelligence to actually read the bible (koran and book of mormon, et al) could/would not put this book down and seriously believe that crap — starting with the first two chapters of Genesis.

    So many people take the [politically correct] route to determine if there is or is not any “god.” They say that science cannot prove that there is NO “god” (but that’s not true, as I will show below) so these people “conclude” there may be or may not be a “god.” That is just wimpy agnosticism. I will prove differently below.

    So, some of you are thinking: OK, put your money [proof] where your mouth [keyboard] is. And that’s exactly what I will do right now — based entirely on simple LOGIC, REASONING and COMMON SENSE:

    .

    ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT THERE IS NO “GOD”

    Introduction
    Part 1:
    You will need to possess the intellect of at least a 13-14 year old child with “normal curiosity”. You do possess that, don’t you? An intelligent 12 year old could also
    determine this as well.

    Part 2: You must possess the understanding of very simple logic and reasoning and as well possess common sense.

    Part 3: You will need to believe and accept unconditionally the entire concept of EVOLUTION. This should be a “given”, since Evolution continues to prove itself every day, all around you. Just look around and one can’t help but see and experience it nearly every minute of every day of your life.

    To NOT accept EVOLUTION, you are to be seriously regarded as so religiously brainwashed that you are, in fact, mentally ill – because Evolution is so obvious if you just look around. Look at any image (photo, video) of any PRIMATE – that alone should prove EVOLUTION to anyone (and everyone). Also, one of the most obvious proof of Evolution is a mother’s pregnancy. You can also prove Evolution to yourself if you just feel/caress your family pet if you own one; if not, then go to your neighbor’s and caress their pet.

    THE PROOF:

    1. By accepting EVOLUTION, you have literally proven to yourself that there is NO “god”. ———> Here’s how:

    2. Because of EVOLUTION, you must admit to yourself and accept the obvious FACT that no “god created” any human being at any time. Because no “god created” any human, there was NO biblical “Adam and Eve”.

    3. Since there was NO biblical “Adam & Eve”, there was NO biblical “garden of eden”. After all, the entire purpose of the “garden of eden” was for “Adam & Eve”.

    4. Since there was NO biblical “garden of eden”, there was obviously no biblical “forbidden fruit” (or “tree of knowledge”) since in order to have any biblical “fruit”, there would have to be a biblical “garden” – which of course, didn’t exist.

    5. Since there was NO biblical “garden of eden”, and no biblical “forbidden fruit”, there was obviously NO “god warning Adam & Eve” about not taking of any non-existent “forbidden fruit”. ———> (Ya think?)

    6. Since there was NO biblical “garden of eden”, there was obviously no biblical “talking serpent or snake” (just how childish or stupid are you to actually believe in any “talking serpent”?).

    7. Since there is NO biblical “forbidden fruit”, NO biblical “talking serpent” and NO “god warning Adam & Eve” about not taking of any non-“fruit”, there was NO biblical “original sin”.

    8. Since there was NO biblical “original sin”, then by simple logic, reasoning and just plain common sense, there was NO “need” for a biblical “jesus christ to die for a biblical human sin [original or otherwise]”.

    9. Since there there was NO biblical “jesus christ” that “died for biblical human sins”, it stands to reason that there was obviously NO biblical (or real) “resurrection” of this FALSE “jesus christ” because there was NO “original sin” for “him to die and resurrect” for. (“jesus christ” was totally fabricated.)

    10. Since there was obviously NO biblical (or real) “resurrection” of this FALSE “jesus christ”, there is logically NO reason for any “god” to “offer everlasting life (after-life)”. And, without “everlasting life”, there is logically NO reason for any “god”.

    ERGO, THERE IS NO “GOD”. PERIOD. By Penboy – Do not remove this authorship

    Feel free to copy this as much as you like and pass this around to whoever you wish to — the more, the merrier. Just don’t change anything as I’ve written it and don’t remove the authorship. [It’s “copyrighted” by me in 2015. :-)) ]

    1. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure, that just ain’t so.” – Mark Twain

  14. To give you a 21st Century perspective on creation/evolution, consider this:

    Evolutionist: See that shiny new Toyota [Ford, Land Rover, etc] SUV over there? It was put together by hundreds of men and women working a line putting their own specific part on it or painting it until it was completed

    Creationist: No, that’s not true. God alone created it instantly and put it in my driveway so that I can own it, drive it and show it off to all those who aren’t so fortunate enough to receive God’s gift.

  15. @Penboy I was expecting this. If you want to explore Christianity and Science go and read John Polkinghorne ( Cambridge Partical Physicist and ordained Priest) or Ian Barbour. All I will say is that even non religious scientists have stated that creation is not mechanical or random. Whether you be

    “It is not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fullyconsistent way without reference to conciousness” Eugene Wagner

    “An idea of th utmost significance for the development of psycho- energetic systems…is that the structure of matter may not be independent of consciousness” Jack Sarfatti

    “We do not know what matter is when we look at matter alone only when Spirit dwells in matter and uses it as a tool co we learn the capacities of mattter. The sensitiveness of eye and ear, the delicacy of the artist’s touch, are achievements which we could never anticipate from the study of the lifeless” Archbishop William Temple

    They can argue more eloquently than I but one can’t pusuade one who is so dead to spirituality in any case. Where do you stand on Buddhism ? That places justbas strong an emphasis on the separation of the physical and the spiritual. Also where all the hate has come from in your case.

    Suffice to say if you really feel strongly about situations such as depicted above you should channel your anger constructively and lobby and protest against them.

    Everyone is entitled to their beliefs or lack of but your implication that all Christians are bigoted fundamentalists are untrue.Your assertion that all Christians are hidbound anti evilutionists is untrue. The above holds true for me even whether one is talking about creation in7 days or seven billion years.

    Over and out.

    1. @Fini

      “”Everyone is entitled to their beliefs or lack of but your implication that all Christians are bigoted fundamentalists are untrue.””

      I could say that what you say in what I quoted is true but there is also the problem of all the christians who go to church or temples and don’t voice their opinion against those that are openly homophobes and bigots. Silence is deadly because homophobes and bigots choose to interpret that silence as approval. The day christians walk away from their priests and preachers to show their opposition to homophobia and bigotry is the day things will change.

  16. @Old Dan well many do stand up against homophobia. The Methodist and United Revorm Churches here are actively supportive as are other churches. There are factions in all churches as in politics and life: conservative and liberal. I hear what you are saying. It is just penboy’s sweeping statements that irk me. What he has never explained is where he thinks consciousness comes from. This is because even modern science cannot really explain it. Oh well…

    1. @Fini

      Oooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

      “”What he has never explained is where he thinks consciousness comes from.””

      Before deciding you know where consciousness comes from you absolutely have to watch the epic series “Closer To Truth”. This series has got to be the most honest look at religions, religious beliefs and disbeliefs. Robert Lawrence Kuhn his the man that guides us with him on his quest to get closer To Truth. The way the word truth is used here is important. It’s not about THE truth but truth. As for Penboy, forgive him for he knows not what he does. :-P **

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Closer_to_Truth_episodes

      ** Actually I do side with Penboy. It’s his way at going at it I don’t approve of. But it’s his choice to make, not mine. Penboy, you remind me of a caller on Coast to Coast AM. He always gives his name followed by I’m an atheist and an amateur astronomer. Always.

    2. @fini:
      “What he has never explained is where he thinks consciousness comes from. This is because even modern science cannot really explain it.”

      Watch this if you have the stamina:
      Bill Nye (Science) debates Ken Ham (Creationist/Young Earth):
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9yQEG7mlTU

      Is that your “bellweather” question for the acceptance of science v. “god”? Well, I don’t know, and you’re quite correct that science has not yet answered that question:

      Or, for your attention span, Bill Nye v. Ken Ham – The Short Version:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA3E8wpBO_I

      Bill Nye’s reaction to debating Ken Ham:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZauBhigbc2s
      If you wish, skip to approx. 04:45 and watch/listen closely.

      I was asked at least a few times by Michael R how our universe was formed in the very beginning. Again, I don’t know. But, just because I don’t know the answer to many science questions (that was never my field of expertise), that doesn’t mean these are all some kind of “gotcha!” questions — Science isn’t in total agreement on the “Big Bang Theory” as well — we’re still learning as time goes on. Maybe the information we get from Mars will help us with these “beginning” questions. Who knows?

      Here’s a video by a respondent who watched this entire debate:
      Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate – My Thoughts:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsO30IixEA

      You might want to listen to his reasoning of why he’s saying what he does. He brings up a great point to what you do so often — trying to point to someone else who has “credentials.” Also, jump to 04:50 if you want to skip over some of this and listen carefully to his reaction to Ken Ham’s answer to: “What would you do to change your mind if you were proven wrong?”

      Also, take note of how I respond to your (or someone else’s) comments. I usually try to provide some proof or at least some links or references to help you understand. But, you don’t. All you religionists ever do is take pot-shots at my personality (which you don’t know or will ever know). You have never responded to any of the merits of my comments, you simply attack me, personally and in so doing, try to make yourself look “more intelligent”. You might want to think about that.

      Oh, yes, I almost forgot. Since you asked me a science question, here’s a “bible” question for you:

      Since the bible states that there was a world-wide flood for over a year that destroyed all the animals and plants on Earth (that wasn’t in Noah’s Ark) and there’s this widespread opinion that the Ark ended up on a mountain in the Middle East (around the Black Sea?) or thereabouts.

      So, here’s my question: Just how did Australia get their kangaroos and dingos? Also, just how did New Zealand get their kiwis (the flightless birds, not the fruit)?

      I’d love to read your logic on how those animals got over to those islands from the Middle East.

      1. @Penboy

        Hell, I know you’ll get pissed of but so be it.

        Do you realize that you are guilty of the same “crime” you accuse believers of? They use verse after verse of what ever they religious book is to back to their arguments/beliefs. You? Well you use verse after verse of the Encyclopedia Galactica. My point? You use it as dogma. Science as dogma. Yet it’s that same science that said that stones didn’t fall from the sky, that rats came from piles of rags, that Pasteur was lying when he said he could show, with the use of a microscope, infinitesimal creatures that could make people sick. Religion isn’t an absolute. Science isn’t an absolute.

        My goal is simply to make people realize that it is how they use their beliefs or lack of beliefs that can be good or bad. In all honesty, I don’t give a damn what they believe in. It’s what they do with that belief.

        Look, I’ve happily listened to an audio book by Christopher Hitchens. I’ve also watched his debates. I also have watched Nye vrs Ham. I have read “Out Of The Silent Planet”, “Perelandra”, and “That Hideous Strength”.

        Also “Moby Dick”. Penboy, you are Ahab. That white whale of yours will never die by your hand, only by it’s own inevitable fate, time itself working against it.

        @Fini

        I actually have taken a course in transcendental meditation. I’d recommend it to anyone wondering if it’s worth trying. It’s an absolute yes. Oh, make sure that the teacher isn’t trying to pass it off as part of a religion. It’s a technique that has nothing to do with religion.

  17. @OldDan indeed it is an interesting debate provided people are level headed and non hysterical. In fact I read a lot of Buddhist stuff too and practice Vipassana mindfulness meditation. A lot of what they write about the mind and consciousness is fascinating. The Hindu Guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar breaks down individual existence as follows: body, breath, mind, intellect, memory,ego, self. I would certainly recommend PB practices mindfulness to get rid of the rage and vitriol. I would be interested to know background to such rawness. In fact I actually am quite concerned it might stem from abuse of some sort during childhood in which case I can understand the hate :(

    Anyway I have said all I need to say. Oh and if you are interested in meditation…

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Open-Heart-Practising-Compassion-Everyday/dp/0340794313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428674533&sr=8-1&keywords=dalai+lama+open+heart

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mindfulness-Plain-English-20th-Anniversary/dp/0861719069/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428674572&sr=8-1&keywords=mindfulness+in+plain+english

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Coming-Our-Senses-Ourselves-Mindfulness/dp/0749925884/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428674598&sr=8-1&keywords=coming+to+our+senses

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *