This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by tboulay

Go to: Why Jehovah's Witnesses won't mourn the Aurora victims

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by tboulay

"What I want to know is what you - the the non-Jehovah's Witness - feels like when you hear things like this being said."

Usually I'd just point out things like:

5 Jehovah's Witness ministers killed in plane crash


Teen Jehovah's Witness killed out in service


Shooting at kingdom hall in Oregon

or a thousand other examples...

Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:49:52 UTC | #950283

Go to: Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 111 by tboulay

Comment 2 by ingold.a :

  Okay, I'm about as athiest/secular minded as one can get and I think this is outright ridiculous. I mean, come on it's a necklace. I know that the same respect wouldn't be given to me if I wanted to wear an atheistic symbol to work, but who cares?

So, If I work at a government office, say some government service office should I be fully free to wear my 24 carrot gold swastika pendant? I mean, come on; it's only a necklace. And what about other religious symbols? should people be able to wear full burka's at work? I'm sorry sergeant I won't be wearing my police uniform, I'm muslim and my religious symbol is a black cloth bag. Remember, this case is about religious symbols, not a necklace. If it was a case to be able to wear whatever necklace pendant you wanted at work it would be slightly different, but "religious symbol" opens up a massive hole. Sikhs for instance, have a kirpan as a religious symbol, which happens to be a knife with a crescent shaped blade of various sizes worn on a type of sash across the torso. Is this religious symbol an issue for a Sikh pilot or flight attendant of British Airways?

The cross pendant is not the issue, the words "religious symbol" are the issue; because if you expressly allow one; ANY, then all others have rightful justification. Again, if you allow one, you have to allow them all.

Besides, they can always wear their cross under their shirt, if the point is their personal faith and not shoving their faith in other peoples faces, whether the cross is outside or inside their shirt shouldn't matter. Mormons for instance shouldn't give a crap about this argument since no one will tell them not to where their magic under-where at work. (I guess unless they're a swimsuit model or something)

He accused ministers and the courts of “dictating” to Christians and said it was another example of Christianity becoming sidelined in official life.

I'd say: "It's another wonderful example of christianity becoming sidelined in official life"

Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:47:45 UTC | #926265

Go to: What do you say to your faith-based neighbors?

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by tboulay

Lol, you can tell I'm a unix sysadmin, first thought was "of course I'd ridicule them". But when I thought about it a little, a computer full of crap usually tells me that the person thinks they know what they're doing, but in reality they're computionally ignorant. They probably don't put much thought into what they click on either "a full 6 inches!!!" I'm IN!!!

Comment 3 by eljeffe :

"For me, that is like ridiculing someone's computer because it has been loaded with faulty software."

i suppose that is true, but i find myself having a hard time not ridiculing someone for clicking on an obvious phishing link or effectively installing the virus themselves.

skepticism and science make a great anti-virus software for religion!

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:53:02 UTC | #925734

Go to: “Forget Jesus” – Controversy at the Intersection of Miley Cyrus, Lawrence Krauss, Christianity, Atheism, Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by tboulay

Comment 6 by Daniel Clear :

so Miley Cyrus is cool now?

I don't know. I can definitely say that I feel some respect for her now where there was none before. The fact that she tweeted something by Lawrence Krauss; hell the fact that she knows who he is puts her far above any other idol of my 8 year old daughter in my respect department.

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 22:49:45 UTC | #925483

Go to: Rick Warren and the “Same” God Issue

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 43 by tboulay

do all worshippers of invisible, incorporeal, floating, garage dragons that breath heatless fire, actually worship the same invisible, incorporeal, floating, garage dragons, that breath heatless fire?

Below is a picture of the invisible, incorporeal, floating, garage dragon that breaths heatless fire.

Below is a picture of no dragon at all.

The invisible and the non-existent share a striking resemblance.

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 02:31:19 UTC | #924771

Go to: Worm-like fossil a 'distant cousin' of humans

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by tboulay

ya, you're right, the article does explain a little more. Well, it doesn't really tell us much that wasn't known/inferred before, but does give us greater confirmation which is always a good thing.

Comment 10 by Daisy Skipper :

The New Scientist article clarifies things a bit (and has a short video).

Although Pikaia was discovered a century ago, Morris says the latest results represent the first comprehensive analysis of all the fossils with the most up-to-date analytical techniques, such as scanning electron microscopes.

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 02:24:59 UTC | #924767

Go to: Worm-like fossil a 'distant cousin' of humans

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by tboulay

Was this not the chordate that Gould used in his 'wind back the tape of time' example from Wonderful Life? .. Not that I'm complaining, any evolution related headlines are a good thing; but it was discovered in 1911, Gould used it as an example of our distant cousin in a fairly popular book in 1989.. little late on the headline.. How is this new information? it was the earliest known chordate in '89 and it's the earliest known one now.

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:53:34 UTC | #924697

Go to: Ireland is also more secular than we thought

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by tboulay

If a religion indoctrinates generation after generation of children it keeps propagating, but, if that religion beats and rapes generation after generation of children my guess is that you're going to end up with parents who won't let their kids anywhere near that fucking cult.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:54:48 UTC | #921488

Go to: Atheist in Memory Lapse and Slavery Shock

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by tboulay

I loved the slave point for sheer absurdity; .. "why yes, my great x5 grandfather may have had slaves but I don't claim to worship him. The book you're holding says slavery is ok, tells you how to 'brand' your slaves, when you can sell them and who you can own; and I'm saying it has no place in modern decision making, and you're saying it should."

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:48:48 UTC | #921486

Go to: Mormons baptize Holocaust victim Anne Frank posthumously, says report

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by tboulay

There's kinda 2 things about this.. on the one hand it's as meaningless as me saying that I declare Hitler a posthumous Jew. It's just stupidity plain and simple.

However Hitchens had a bit of a different view on this, in that it was the mormon answer to the question of what happens to all the people who died before jesus ever got here; ie. do christians believe that a human who died before christ was born have to spend eternity in hell even though they never got the chance to 'accept him' as their saviour?

If you look at it that way, it's like they're saying that people who died without ever knowing what they're religion was won't be punished for not knowing; because they'll baptise you into it.

Anyway; regardless of that - them doing it, and others saying they shouldn't be allowd to is almost like kids playing lord of the rings or something "I cast a charm spell on you.. ; oh no you don't I'm wearing my anti charm bracelet and my reflect charm glasses so you get hit with your own spell"

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 19:56:24 UTC | #921205

Go to: A brutal price still paid for daring to challenge faith

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by tboulay

I wish there were some way to force people who don't respect a certain branch of science or the scientific method in general to suddenly have the fruits of that scientific knowledge taken away from them. You don't accept that DNA evidence tells us that humans evolved from non-human ape like ancestors; fine, then you no longer get to benefit from anything that this knowledge of DNA has brought us. You get to live in a society where criminals who are now in prison because of DNA evidence are roaming the streets. you have no access to any medical treatment that has been derived from this knowledge. Suddenly, any agricultural advances made because of our knowledge of DNA are gone. Millions and Millions of people would die or would have never been born to begin with.

The reason why our lives are better than the lives of those who lived even 200 years ago is because of science; not because of magic. They take it for granted because they live in a world where they can take advantage of the results of critical thinking and evidence based reasoning every minute of every day; yet remain completely ignorant of it. Ignorant to the point where they disparage the very mode of thought that brought them everything they have.

I wonder what their grandchildren will think of the global warming "hoax" as they strap their gas mask on to take the dog for a walk.

/end another rant.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:10:32 UTC | #921070

Go to: A brutal price still paid for daring to challenge faith

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by tboulay

I'm going to apologise in advance for the string of profanities that I'm about to launch on these 'faith' fucks. One, because I'm sick of them and two, because I just finished Frankie Boyle's new album and I'm feeling particularly nasty.

That being said, here goes. Since when is honesty anything other than honest. It doesn't have to be nice, and most of the time it isn't.

"Fuck you and screw your stupid, ignorant and moronic ideas that have no basis in reality; You don't belong in the conversation, and it should be a crime that ignorant scum like you get to vote" ..

.. may not sound nice, but may very well be the absolute truth. We're dealing with the real world, reality.. if your opinions are formed and based on a being that has no foundation in reality your view should not have any impact on the conversation.

Why is it so difficult for these morons to understand. They would not pay attention to someone speaking on behalf of invisible, floating garage dwelling dragons who spit heatless fire; why the fuck should anyone have to listen to, let alone do anything because of their insane delusions.

I despise religion with the passion of a thousand burning suns, I just wish there was some way for us to get these people to understand how stupid we think their beliefs are. Even when we point out some insane pretend entity that they would never believe, they somehow cannot make the connection that their beliefs are just as idiotic.

Them saying that Richard is militant or strident etc. also boils me. He's spent his life on evolution, he's extremely well educated on the matter, and it's as if these people are saying, yes, sure you know what you're talking about when it comes to evolution; but who are you to comment on the content of my psychotic episodes, and the bearing they have on the universe..

It would be like having a cosmologist on and getting his evidence based views on the universe and then turning to some grade school drop out with brain damage and giving the same weight to his view that the sky is just a blanket and the stars are just holes in the blanket.

Ok, I'm done ranting... Kudos to the article author, haven't been this pissed after an article in quite a while.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:53:11 UTC | #920848

Go to: Science and cinema

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 32 by tboulay

I find that Television is much friendlier to science. But how the scientist is portrayed is sort of dependant on the person watching. For example, I was talking to a friend of mine; we both like Bones. Her view of the main character and mine were completly different. Personality wise, I think she portrays the optimal scientist. She's extremely driven, cares about nothing but the truth, laughs off any sort of 'magical' explinations; she's an atheist, thinks religion is nonsense superstition etc. when there is a 'mystical' explination; either it turns out that science gives them the truth, or in her view the truth simply remains unknown.

My friend basically thought she was cold, kinda mean, heartless, didn't care about others opinions etc.

See, I have no problem when someone is a jerk to someone else who's argueing with them, when the one being a jerk is right. Hell, if someone is argueing with me that evolution is not true, I will be a jerk, If you're stupid or ignorant enough to not 'believe' facts, you deserve it.

I find Science is fairly well portrayed in shows like Numbers as well as a number of 'csi' type shows, but the reason again is perspective; I don't really view the 'cop' main character as the most important role. When I watch a show like that and I see cops following an investigation I realize that everything they do depends on the scientists, Every move they make is because a computer genius found something sifting through data, or a forensics person made a DNA match, or a trace evidence analysis showed some anomly.

I think the problem boils down to the fact that scientists like facts, and what another characters "gut" or "feelings" is saying doesn't matter. People who think that 'everyones opinion matters' will always view that as the scientist being a jerk, or being uncaring or cold. In order for it to change, people have to realize that when it comes to science, their opinion is worthless, if they actually knew the subject, they'd already know that their opinion is worthless and persent some fact.

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:18:19 UTC | #919866

Go to: Andrew Copson and Anne Atkins discussing 'militant secularism'

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 41 by tboulay

Comment 22 by Richard Dawkins : Here it is. The original sound file seems to have been taken down, but the text of it is here.

It doesn't seem very aggressive to me, but I fear that anything even mildly non-religious automatically sounds aggressive through the ears of an Anne Atkins.

Honestly, I'm really starting to think that ridicule is the only way to combat people like this. We should stop asking for religious equality by removing all religions from the arms of government and start demanding equal time for all religions. Bishops in the house of lords? great. lets get some pastafarians in there, lets get some imams, some rabbi's, some Jedi, couple of Mormons, few scientologists, couple of Yogi's, some druids, pepper in a few witches, and some satanists for good measure.

If we stop saying "we don't want prayer in school" and start saying we want MORE prayer in schools, we want every single minority religion to get the exact same treatment as christianity.

Honestly, if we stop saying "Atheists simply don't believe in god" and start saying "no no, atheism is the unquestioned faith of those who KNOW that the universe was created by and is now controlled by the almighty Atheismo." We don't demand that you remove the bishops from the house of lords; we demand that you allow ours in!

It would have to get to a point where they simply realized that the only way to allow equality to all religions is to allow access to none (as far as government is concerned)

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:25:34 UTC | #918219

Go to: What is deism? Is it possible?

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 99 by tboulay

Comment 92 by Functional Atheist :

I give deism such (relatively) good odds due, in large part, to the multiverse hypothesis: such a creator evolved in another universe, and created our universe as a 'daughter' universe, with physical constants mirroring that of the deity's universe, allowing for star formation and a complex chemistry, thus permitting the evolution of complex and sentient beings like us. So our universe is, in effect, a lab experiment created by super-evolved organisms that reside in another part of a larger multiverse--quite improbable, but significantly less implausible than a theistic Father Sky God.

I don't really see some being who creates a universe by accident as being worthy of any type of 'god' title.

Lets say some wierd ass thing happened at the LHC and we create a black hole that starts sucking matter in. It sucks in so much matter that it eventually 'bursts' out the other side and all the 'stuff' from our universe starts pouring through and expanding into this other, new, universe. So, 13.72 billion years pass with all of our universes crap expanding from a single point in space, the point where the black hole finally gave and exploded into that universes big bang.

Would anyone in that other universe be justified in believing that Lyn Evans was the deistic creator of their universe because he led the design team that built the LHC?

Some "thing" may have "created" our universe, but in no more substantial of a way that I can "create" an explosion by igniting dynamite.

But anyway, Even if we could prove something like the above, it does nothing for us; the fundamental questions that we have about our universe would simply take a single step back while we then asked how "his" universe started.

To paraphrase Richard; Even if something or someone 'created' our universe, that thing would not be a god, it would not be magic. It would be the end result of a long evolution like process.

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:42:45 UTC | #918195

Go to: What is deism? Is it possible?

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 88 by tboulay

Comment 87 by M-eme-tic :

In short, 'deism' is possible? Manifestly so.

However, by definition; would a diest not also be an 'atheist'? If someone states that they're a diest, they're essentially admitting that they cannot make the leap to believing in a theistic god. Just as someone cannot be a polytheist and a monotheist at the same time, they cannot claim diesm and theism at the same time. Is claiming that one is a diest, in fact an admission that one is an atheist?

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:17:16 UTC | #918048

Go to: What is deism? Is it possible?

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 86 by tboulay

Comment 65 by The Jersey Devil :.

I would also suggest that to put yourself as a ‘7’ you are making a positive assertion about the universe. The burden of proof now switches to you. Even claiming a 6.999999 would not switch the burden but claiming a 7 does.

So how can one become a 7? I’ve been kicking around an idea in my head for some time so I think I’ll throw it out there and see what the RDF community has to say.

The way I look at it is that being a theist requires positive action, even if that action is only mental action. They "believe", I on the other hand; don't. I see a big difference in the sentences:

I don't believe there is a god. and I believe that there is no god.

It's kind of why I don't think the word agnostic can even apply to the question "do you believe in god?" I don't know is not really a valid answer, either you do and partake in the 'action' of believing, or you don't; and are therefore an atheist.

I've always understood the 'A' in atheist to be completly interchangable with 'non' or 'not', so if a theist is asking ya, I'm a 7 in the sense that I'm absoultly, positivly, beyond the shadow of a doubt sure that I definitly do not believe what you're telling me. It's like me and a theist standing outside starbucks, he runs in, buys a coffee and comes back out. He's a customer; I'm not. I'm not saying starbucks, or coffee do not exist; I'm just saying that I'm not buying.

That being said, when someone asks me the difference between an agnostic and an atheist I say: "An agnostic says 'I don't know' ; an atheist says 'YOU don't know!'"

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:25:50 UTC | #918039

Go to: Britain being overtaken by 'militant secularists', says Baroness Warsi

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by tboulay

Comment 84 by Deako :

She says that faith has a “key role” in bridging divides

She says that faith has a key role in widening divides.

There, that's fixed.


Ya, that's like Hitchens debate with Tony Blair. Blair was arguing that interfaith releations were a great help in solving an issue in northern Ireland recently, and that this was essentially a plus for religion.

Hitchens said; basically 'wonderful, so .. where exactly did this "religious divide" come from?'

Again, saying that religion is good for bridging 'divides' is pretty useless when it's causing the divides in the first place.

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:52:54 UTC | #917758

Go to: What is deism? Is it possible?

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 58 by tboulay

I've always seen Deism as sort of the last grasp at a straw that the theist does when they can't justify their belief, and are honest enough to admit it.  In fact, I'd say almost every catholic I know could only be accurately described as a deist.

It's sort of a way that a theist can go on not admitting that they're wrong, because it's a position that at it's core is so vague that it almost doesn't matter.

Technically, deism could include some alien life form that created our universe by accident, but has absolutely no input or control on anything after the big bang.  In fact, I find that when a religious person goes down the road the deism, and finally comes out with something like "well I think there was some entity that created our universe but has no interest or role in human affairs, or in the workings of the universe as a whole" 

I like to end the conversation with the "so, technically the creator could have been an alien named ted that accidentally exploded the universe into existance while lighting his farts on a sunny dobbleday afternoon"

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:46:41 UTC | #917730

Go to: Britain being overtaken by 'militant secularists', says Baroness Warsi

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 80 by tboulay

Comment 78 by Daniel Clear :

surely this miracle could not have come about if not for the inclusive powers of atheism?

All Praise the allmighty Atheismo!

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:29:57 UTC | #917724

Go to: Britain being overtaken by 'militant secularists', says Baroness Warsi

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 79 by tboulay

Comment 64 by Daniel Clear :

sums it up beautifully

That was awesome.. love the quote about bringing people hope, reminds me of another quote..

"Religion gives people hope in a world torn apart by religion."

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:28:25 UTC | #917723

Go to: Malaysia deports Saudi journalist Hamza Kashgari

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 64 by tboulay

The joys of living with a muslim majority. Democracy is a massive liability if people like this make up the majority. Not only is it sick that the saudi's would punish him, with writing lines on a chalk board; let alone death! but it's almost sicker that another country would deport him into this. Malaysia is usually touted as the moderate muslim country; it should serve as a warning to us all on just what is meant by "moderate islam"

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:20:03 UTC | #917719

Go to: Britain being overtaken by 'militant secularists', says Baroness Warsi

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 36 by tboulay

“For me, one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities.”

What a bunch of crap! Secularism at it's core is deeply intolerant?? When was the last secular honour killing? when was the last time that a journalist was threatened with death for criticising one of Dawkins books?

These people are (excuse me) fucking unbelievable!! I wonder if she thinks that pastafarians deserve to feel stronger in their religious identities? What about the church of the invisible pink unicorn do they deserve a seat at this wonderful table of all things make believe.

Seriously, I think the only way that we're ever going to be able to fight these ignorant morons is to demand that some fucking crazy make believe idea of ours needs to be treated equally with theirs. It's obvious that claiming non-belief gets us nowhere with these people, maybe it would finally stop them for pushing for their religion if they knew that it would mean equal voice in the public square for Jedis, worshippers of the flying spaghetti monster etc.

Saying we don't believe in their imaginary friends gets us nowhere, perhaps we need to start pushing for the most retarded imaginary friends we can dream of.

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:17:11 UTC | #917488

Go to: Canadian imams issue fatwa against honor killings

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 102 by tboulay

Comment 85 by Steve Zara :

Comment 83 by tboulay

Agreed, however, we don't exactly have much of a sample size for "good" fatwas.

So there is no justification for making crass statements about such fatwas then.

Again, agreed; but based on the evidence his comment about the fatwas promoting hatred is more justified.

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:56:14 UTC | #916095

Go to: Canadian imams issue fatwa against honor killings

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 83 by tboulay

Comment 81 by Steve Zara :

Really? What can you possibly base this on? How do you know that Muslims don't pay attention to the fatwas forbidding death and destruction?

Agreed, however, we don't exactly have much of a sample size for "good" fatwas. "Bad" ones however, the sample size is a little bigger, and the reaction from dedicated followers is much more enthusiastic.

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:07:50 UTC | #915987

Go to: Canadian imams issue fatwa against honor killings

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 71 by tboulay

Comment 52 by Helga Vierich :

Well folks, from the number of cynical comments here it almost seems to be that moderate Muslims are damned if they do and damned if they don't speak out.

I'm finding that a lot of people are affording special treatment to this religion right now in this thread. Yes, they should speak out within their religion against this. But from the outside looking in, I'm not going to give them any special passes.

Imagine a story that began:

"Today the Richard Dawkins foundation issued a decree to all of its members stating in no uncertian terms that it is wrong for them to murder their own children."

Would people be applauding that? No, they'd be saying the same thing I'm saying about this fatwa, the fact that their members have to be told this is one hell of a damning statement. I cannot bring myself to applaud the fact that they've said this officially with a fatwa because of the horrible realization that there is a fairly large group of people walking around in our society that actually needed to be told this.

It's the same disrespect that I feel for the catholic church telling priests that it's wrong to rape young children, the fact that they needed to be told is much more significant in my mind than the release of a statement saying so.

As for the effect this fatwa has; well, lets imagine someone insane enough to kill their own children in order to protect their honor. Is a statement from an imam really going to reverse their insanity? Or maybe the fatwa is aimed at the more moderate members, you know the fence sitters; the ones just toying with the idea of murdering their children for honor.

Anyway, bottom line: from the outside looking in, the reason they had to issue the fatwa is far more significant than the fatwa itself.

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:03:28 UTC | #915891

Go to: A Proclamation - Darwin Week

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by tboulay

That was really good, Proud to be Canadian. :) Now if Ottawa could do the same nation wide.

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:22:30 UTC | #915793

Go to: Canadian imams issue fatwa against honor killings

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 48 by tboulay

The thing that I find insane about these fatwa's are the subjects they feel they have to address. It's like some stupid old law that's still on the books like 'It is illegal to bring bears to the beach in Israel'... I always think, if they had to pass a law, they must have had a problem with droves of people showing up at the beach with BEARS??

It's like this, How fucking warped are your followers if you actually have to tell them that murdering their own child is something they should not do? It's like issuing a fatwa to discourage people from kicking infants with steel toe boots; if you have to tell someone that; they are not the type of person you want walking around unmedicated.

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:17:59 UTC | #915791

Go to: “Only a theory”???

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by tboulay

Its just not fair that people who accept facts, study science and make breakthroughs with that hard won knowledge are directly responsible for this woman likely living to the age of 80 as opposed to the 20 or so years of age she would have had back when the reasonable were burned alive for being reasonable.

It's so discouraging. :(

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:55:27 UTC | #915753

Go to: Two equally bad fallacies

tboulay's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by tboulay

Comment 2 by potteryshard :

My own particular annoyance is that too many times, people consider all opinions equally valid.

Mine is sort of along these lines, but rather it's the belief that opinions have any bearing at all when facts are available. In essence, I don't give a rats ass about how it makes you feel, evolution is a fact, if you don't accept that fact, you're an idiot and don't deserve a place in the conversation. You're opinion has no bearing, my opinion has no bearing. Reasoned argument, supported by logic and evidence is all that matters.

(of course the "you" I refer to is just some generic creationist and not directed at anyone here :))

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:28:55 UTC | #912889