Latest Hate Mail victim

Haruko · Post by **Haruko** » 2006-03-10 07:33pm

Michael Rennie wrote:What I meant was, Darwin himself never denied the existence of God.

Though irrelevant, isn't it also false? I thought Darwin became agnostic.

Haruko · Post by **Haruko** » 2006-03-10 07:36pm

Or rather much more so during his studies.

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2006-03-10 07:53pm

Michael Rennie wrote:I dont have to prove that America is a Christian country - just turn on your TV and watch those televangelists.

I love this guy.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2006-03-10 08:28pm

Baron Scarpia wrote:And what "calculations" did he do to prove that the natural formation of the solar system was impossible? That ludicrous claim should have been met with a challenge to see his work!

He already gave his 'mathematical' 'proof' that human evolution would have been impossible. It would just be a rehash, e.g. Let's assume that there is a one in a billion chance (quite conservative) that rocks would turn in to planets within a year, well then you'd need trillions of years for the solar system to form, QED.

I don't think he realizes what he's doing, he actually thinks that when scientists do calculations it's just as easy as that. Hence his 'Don't call me stupid, wah, wah'. He thinks those are valid calcs worthy of any professional scientist (said scientist inevitably cowering in befuddlement and dogmatic fear).

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-03-10 11:20pm

brianeyci wrote:I wonder what the opposite of Born-Again Christians is.

The literate.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2006-03-11 05:45am

Well, Michael Rennie got one thing out of all of this. He is mentioned two times in your hate mail list, something which no one else manged to achive yet. But this is really a doubtful honor.
And what is it with his claiming that the US was founded as a Christian nation?

I can finally make the conclusion, that deporting all the religious nutjobs and bigots to America all these centuries back had two effects. The Europeans got rid of them, and America became more religious fanatic than Europe.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-03-11 04:48pm

This is my favorite part of your site

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-03-12 01:31am

His latest post on his blog is quite amusing.

The pace at which the American Clergy Leadership Conference is gaining strength is astounding. This photo from the 2006 coordinator's seminar shows the ACLC's ambitious but totally feasible goal for the next two years:

<picture of mooks holding a banner>

Without a doubt, the ACLC is unstopable in the cause of uniting Christianity & all faiths to be a true role model for America. These are surely the last days; and when the religious right stands united, the world will change.

If he really thinks it's the End of Days, why didn't he try to save your immortal soul, Mike?

[/quote]

Baron Scarpia · Post by **Baron Scarpia** » 2006-03-12 02:33am

Why would a guy who lives in Europe care so much about an American clergy group? Oh wait...

And this, erm, "unstopable" force of, uh, 30 people will be 30,000 in 2 years time? Yeah, good luck with that.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-03-12 03:12am

Baron Scarpia wrote:Why would a guy who lives in Europe care so much about an American clergy group? Oh wait...

And this, erm, "unstopable" force of, uh, 30 people will be 30,000 in 2 years time? Yeah, good luck with that.

"If I tell two people, and they tell two people... that's like ten people already!"

Post by **fgalkin** » 2006-03-12 04:38am

Oh dog, a Moonie. Crazy fundies I can understand, but a crazy cultist?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-12 07:58am

Haruko wrote:
Michael Rennie wrote:What I meant was, Darwin himself never denied the existence of God.
Though irrelevant, isn't it also false? I thought Darwin became agnostic.

There's a difference between agnosticism and atheism; agnosticism merely denies the existence of evidence about God, whereas atheism denies the existence of God. Agnosticism is a necessary condition for atheism, but one can certainly be agnostic without being atheist.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2006-03-12 11:32am

Pint0 Xtreme wrote: By the way, what is a European billion?

In german:

1 Million = 10^6
1 Milliarde = 10^9
1 Billion = 10^12
1 Billiarde = 10^15
1 Trillion = 10^18
1 Trilliarde 10^21
and so on

Post by **Edi** » 2006-03-12 12:05pm

Thinkmarble wrote:
Pint0 Xtreme wrote: By the way, what is a European billion?
In german:

1 Million = 10^6
1 Milliarde = 10^9
1 Billion = 10^12
1 Billiarde = 10^15
1 Trillion = 10^18
1 Trilliarde 10^21
and so on

We don't have your billiarde or trilliarde here in Finland. We do have milliarde, and after that comes billion at 10^12 and trillion at 10^15.

Edi

Baron Scarpia · Post by **Baron Scarpia** » 2006-03-12 03:30pm

Surlethe wrote:
Haruko wrote:
Michael Rennie wrote:What I meant was, Darwin himself never denied the existence of God.
Though irrelevant, isn't it also false? I thought Darwin became agnostic.
There's a difference between agnosticism and atheism; agnosticism merely denies the existence of evidence about God, whereas atheism denies the existence of God. Agnosticism is a necessary condition for atheism, but one can certainly be agnostic without being atheist.

Darwin became atheist un the sense that he lacked belief in a god. Many people today like to callthis agnosticism, but it is assuredly an atheist position.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-12 03:35pm

Baron Scarpia wrote:Darwin became atheist un the sense that he lacked belief in a god. Many people today like to callthis agnosticism, but it is assuredly an atheist position.

Right. I was correcting the assumption in Haruko's post that agnosticism implies atheism, not declaring Darwin was only agnostic and not atheist.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-03-12 04:18pm

This bit was amusing:

The Moonie wrote:I never exactly said it was based on the Bible. What I said was that every great civilization from Egypt to Ancient Greece to the Roman Empire to the USA has been firmly grounded in faith. And overall, they have been better off with it.

Hmm, let's see...

Ancient Egypt: faith based on a pantheon of anthromorpic zoo creatures and a weird story about a river goddess who conceives a son from the severed penis of her dead hawk-god husband —conquered by the Romans.

Ancient Greece: faith based on a pantheon of idealised ego-projections who spent half their time squabbling with one another or fucking mortals —conquered by the Romans.

Roman Empire: faith initially based on a pantheon plagarised from Ancient Greece, later became the first major civilisation to embrace Christianity —split into two halves and disintegrated.

USA... oops, this progression isn't looking too good, now is it?

The Moonie wrote:Its not Jesus that is telling your president to go bomb Iraqis.

But George the Stupider, who's bombing Iraqis, claims Jesus as his favourite philosopher.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-12 04:35pm

Patrick Degan wrote:This bit was amusing:

The Moonie wrote:I never exactly said it was based on the Bible. What I said was that every great civilization from Egypt to Ancient Greece to the Roman Empire to the USA has been firmly grounded in faith. And overall, they have been better off with it.
Hmm, let's see...

<snip>

USA... oops, this progression isn't looking too good, now is it?

It might be better to ask, "Better off than what?" The implication is, better off than a secular United States; this, of course, begs the comparison of ancient technology to modern technology, and the question of how, exactly, faith has contributed to modern American scientific advancement.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-03-12 11:52pm

Surlethe wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:This bit was amusing:

The Moonie wrote:I never exactly said it was based on the Bible. What I said was that every great civilization from Egypt to Ancient Greece to the Roman Empire to the USA has been firmly grounded in faith. And overall, they have been better off with it.
Hmm, let's see...

<snip>

USA... oops, this progression isn't looking too good, now is it?
It might be better to ask, "Better off than what?" The implication is, better off than a secular United States; this, of course, begs the comparison of ancient technology to modern technology, and the question of how, exactly, faith has contributed to modern American scientific advancement.

Perhaps. But the point rather is to take his argument about his example "faith-based" societies being "better off for it" and to kick it square in the balls.