tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post8356767401651328276..comments2023-10-17T05:01:42.650-04:00Comments on Abandoning Eden: How I went OTD and left the Jewish Community for good: Part 6Abandoning Edenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12696116071749613265noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-57217399088418893802019-10-07T01:23:09.808-04:002019-10-07T01:23:09.808-04:00I would strongly advise exposing childen to *many*...I would strongly advise exposing childen to *many* religious texts as an *inoculation* against them believing any of them.<br />neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-11341633021453222632017-08-12T06:43:35.807-04:002017-08-12T06:43:35.807-04:00This is so amazing and inspiring. I'm a bit la...This is so amazing and inspiring. I'm a bit late to the party but this makes me so happy. Happy that you left to find peace and happiness because that's not easy, I know how rough it can get it but not everyone has the same bravery and courage as you do. <br />It's even worse when you fall in love with a Jewish male and you're not JewishAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15009348085179612546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-23925644621014975562012-01-17T21:42:23.344-05:002012-01-17T21:42:23.344-05:00wow what a great story i wish u many more and happ...wow what a great story i wish u many more and happy yearsstill jewishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05396743856145914222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-90850312808840966602011-09-09T17:58:23.756-04:002011-09-09T17:58:23.756-04:00Almost every bogus proof that Darwin used in Origi...Almost every bogus proof that Darwin used in Origin has been discredited - embryology, homologies, vestigial organs, all torn to shreds. In the mean time, the fossil evidence has become even more difficult for evolutionists. Sudden change, not gradual evolution, is always the rule. So new excuses have to made up such as punctuated equilibrium and new proofs fabricated, such as junk DNA or ring species, until they too will fall under further scrutiny.<br /><br />Watching atheists twist and turn trying to defend their precious evolution makes Christian theologians presenting proofs of the trinity sound like the ultimate in rationalism by comparison.<br /><br />And by the way that is precisely the meaning of Darwin's comment: microbes spontaneously morphed into people.<br /><br />Honestly, you sound like a very impaired person who knows neither English, science nor religion but thinks he does. Abandoning sounds like an over-sexed young woman who basically, for some unrevealed reason, wants to give her parents a giant "f--- you".jewish philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987540457195983665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-23857428114780117102011-09-09T17:02:25.811-04:002011-09-09T17:02:25.811-04:00Oh well, got to go, so why not have fun a bit firs...Oh well, got to go, so why not have fun a bit first...<br /><br /><i>"Really, you see that as being the same thing?"<br /><br />Yes, it is. According to Darwin, all life, including humans, developed from microbes <b>spontaneously</b>, meaning without the involvement of God.</i><br /><br />How convenient, you leave out the actual quote! Let me put it back here to expose your dishonesty once more...<br /><br />JP said: <i>Darwin made an extraordinary claim: microbes can <b>spontaneously</b> morph into people.</i><br /><br />Darwin actually wrote: <i>...probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form...</i><br /><br />One implies a very long time while the other uses the word <b>spontaneously</b>. Hint: <b>spontaneously</b> does NOT mean 'without the involvement of God'.<br /><br />Do you stand by your words or do you wish to correct your mistake?<br /><br />***<br /><br /><i>On the contrary, you reject Wells because he disagrees with what you've been taught by your parents and teachers; how could you not?</i><br /><br />Parents and teachers... You really like that one don't you? What a joke. I read the link you posted concerning Wells, and I read the critics on NCSE. Did you do that? Probably not... I reject Well's points because of the points themselves. I don't even care about his conclusions because what he states his wrong as exposed by NCSE and so many other professionals in his field. You stick with him because you like his conclusion. It's completely different!<br /><br />***<br /><br /><i>On the contrary, the evidence for evolution keeps shrinking, as we just mentioned regarding the Larus gulls, the classic example of a ring species.</i><br /><br />Can you read?<br /><br />The Larus gulls are a great exemple of speciation and how evolutionary theory is discussed about biologists. You need to ignore such cases to stick with your anti-science view!<br /><br />***<br /><br /><i>Vive le 'atheism of the gaps'!</i><br /><br />Thanks for showing how retarded you are, oh wait, perhaps you were trying to be funny? It's hard to tell when you show suck lack of intelligence in everything else you write...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-19913448625107215942011-09-09T16:39:01.846-04:002011-09-09T16:39:01.846-04:00Good job JP. You are perfect in your role of spine...Good job JP. You are perfect in your role of spineless troll!<br /><br />Any chance you will correct your mistakes before I address the nonsense you just wrote?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-62693982558916672722011-09-09T16:36:35.115-04:002011-09-09T16:36:35.115-04:00"Really, you see that as being the same thing..."Really, you see that as being the same thing?"<br /><br />Yes, it is. According to Darwin, all life, including humans, developed from microbes spontaneously, meaning without the involvement of God.<br /><br />"Of course you agree with Wells, but only because you share his conclusion."<br /><br />On the contrary, you reject Wells because he disagrees with what you've been taught by your parents and teachers; how could you not?<br /><br />""Vive le 'God of the gaps'!"<br /><br />On the contrary, the evidence for evolution keeps shrinking, as we just mentioned regarding the Larus gulls, the classic example of a ring species.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species#Larus_gulls<br /><br />Vive le 'atheism of the gaps'!jewish philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987540457195983665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-29062886438089190792011-09-09T16:24:20.901-04:002011-09-09T16:24:20.901-04:00@JP
*** 1 ***
I said: "Darwin NEVER made su...@JP<br /><br /><b>*** 1 ***</b><br /><br />I said: "Darwin NEVER made such claim"<br /><br />JP replied: <i>Sure he did.</i><br />and quoted Darwin saying...<br /><i>"[...]probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form[...]"</i><br /><br />What I was replying to is this:<br /><i>Darwin made an extraordinary claim: microbes can spontaneously morph into people.</i><br /><br />Really, you see that as being the same thing? Can you be more dishonest?<br /><br /><b>*** 2 ***</b><br /><br /><i>I think Wells is more convincing than his critics. Buy the book.<br />Wells answers critics here http://www.discovery.org/a/1180</i><br /><br />Of course you agree with Wells, but only because you share his conclusion. You simply don't care that he rejects only a tiny portion of what evolutionary theory states because he wants to make sure he can insert his god in the gaps... You don't care that he has to lie and distort information to support his views. You don't care that he offers no alternative to the "flaws" he sees except "Goddidit". Scientific laziness at its best! Vive le 'God of the gaps'!<br /><br />In any case, the article you linked to was written in 2002 while the article I linked to was written in 2008... Enough said.<br /><br /><b>*** 3 ***</b><br /><br />Finally, and most importantly, you just completely avoided the fact that I exposed the article YOU posted as being supportive of the Theory of Evolution. It even supports the notion of ring species that you thought it was falsifying.<br /><br />Clearly you are incapable of admitting that you make mistakes... You completely lost this small "debate" on evolution JP. You have nothing to offer and understand very little of what you are trying to reject.<br /><br />Keep reading books by apologists who already agree with you, it's probably comforting. If you care about learning what real scientists have to say about evolution, I invite you once more to visit NewScientist's website... They quote serious journals like Science and Nature without being as technical. Oh but wait, you just don't care...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-484458247184846422011-09-09T13:27:44.657-04:002011-09-09T13:27:44.657-04:00Oh ya, one more thing...
Darwin made an extraordi...Oh ya, one more thing...<br /><br /><i>Darwin made an extraordinary claim: microbes can spontaneously morph into people.<br /><br />The evidence is virtually nonexistent.<br /><br />http://www.iconsofevolution.com/</i><br /><br />Darwin NEVER made such claim and it contradicts evolutionary theory anyway. What a surprise, it shows that you don't understand evolution, once again...<br /><br />Icons of evolution? You mean Well's book? Really? I sent you a link to NCSE, you should go take a look to read about how dishonest this book was.<br /><br /><a href="http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icons-evolution" rel="nofollow">http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icons-evolution</a><br /><br />CheersWorld of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-31501463015443901722011-09-09T13:25:16.234-04:002011-09-09T13:25:16.234-04:00@JP
Did you even read the article you posted? It ...<b>@JP</b><br /><br />Did you even read the article you posted? <b>It supports evolution 100%...</b><br /><br />I had heard of 3 cases of ring species and it turns out that one of them is the one discussed in this article, so it's interesting to see that it does not fit the ring species model after all.<br /><br />That's how good science works; it adjusts its views based on facts.<br /><br />Now, it's your turn to consider the following JP, since clearly you clearly did NOT read the article...<br /><br /><i>The significant taxonomic and geographical structure <b>enables us to interpret the evolutionary history of these gulls</b> based on mitochondrial genetic variation.<br />[...]<br />Our results show that the ring-species model does not adequately describe the <b>evolution of the herring gull group</b> because, contrary to the proposal of Mayr (1942), there is no overlap between the endpoints of a ring of interbreeding taxa.<br />[...]<br /><b>Although Larus gulls do not currently fulfil the essential criteria of a ring species, this situation may be about to change</b>: lesser black-backed gulls (L. fuscus graellsii ) are Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B (2004) expanding westwards and currently breed as far west as Greenland (Boertmann 1994).<br />[...]<br />Although our results do not support a speciation model involving only isolation by distance, the origin of reproductive barriers in the herring gull complex does provide <b>important insights into the speciation process.</b><br />[...]<br />A case that closely approximates a <b>true ring species is that of the Asian greenish warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides group</b> (Irwin et al. 2001b). Ancestors of this complex spread from south of the Himalayas east and west around the Tibetan Plateau, north of which the ring closed between two taxa that are reproductively isolated[...]</i><br /><br />Thanks for playing though, and thanks a lot for the information, it was a good read!<br /><br />Looking forward for your admission that you were mistaken about evolution JP... but I won't hold my breath, because I think you have a lot more reading to do before you get to this point. What about visiting some museum of natural history? You could learn a lot and get to SEE the evidence instead of just reading about it. It's even more convincing I promise.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-72407693305604056632011-09-09T12:58:07.490-04:002011-09-09T12:58:07.490-04:00"Judaism is the simplest and most plausible a..."Judaism is the simplest and most plausible answer to life's basic questions."<br /><br />its comedy hour on the internet! HAHAHAHAHAH<br /><br />thanks for all those links - well-doneksilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623382090942812327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-70199048579803015362011-09-09T11:52:22.568-04:002011-09-09T11:52:22.568-04:00"You insist that the Biblical God doesn't..."You insist that the Biblical God doesn't exist and evolution created us"<br /><br />makes A LOT more sense than some fairy tale about an invisible bearded man in the sky who wrote a book "A BOOK!!!" and told us to do the most absurd. things. ever. that you insist on! you make scientologists sound rational!<br /><br />"she had an unhappy childhood" - if only she owuld have followed blindly in her parents footsteps! lol<br /><br />"I believe God did it." i believe the tooth fairy did it. i believe zeus did it. you can believe whatever nonsense you want...you appear quite happy with your absurdities. enjoy!<br /><br />"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"<br /><br />oy, if only you took your own advice....ksilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623382090942812327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-16748729846881030442011-09-09T09:44:05.634-04:002011-09-09T09:44:05.634-04:00@JP - 2
I've learned Darwin and I can tell y...<b>@JP - 2</b><br /><br /><i> I've learned Darwin and I can tell you it's a bunch of bullshit.</i><br /><br />Attacking Darwin directly shows once more that you do not understand the evidence used to build the modern Theory of Evolution. You oversimplify ideas and facts in order to dismiss them.<br /><br /><i> His entire premise is that since pigeon breeders can create different breeds of pigeons, therefore "natural selection" can create any species from any species.<br />Of course that's pure nonsense.</i><br /><br /><b>No, THAT is pure nonsense. 'any species from any species' contradicts evolution completely.</b><br />You are attacking a simple strawman version of evolution that suits your denial attitude.<br /><br />Your following examples just show more lack of understanding of what we can learn from biology. Naming a few processes that did not show leaps in evolution big enough for you to accept that speciation occurs does not mean that speciation never occurs.<br /><br /><b>What about ring species? Isn't that a perfect example of speciation?</b><br /><br />Also, what about several other ideas that fit well with evolutionary theory but would be hard to explain with anything else? What about the fact that we all share ATP as a molecule to carry energy? What about chromosome #2 on humans versus other primates? What about the fact that we all use the same amino acids when much more could be used? What about observing speciation with small organism in a relatively short period of time? And so on... None of these, by themselves, are evidence for the complex process of biological evolution, but the point is that it's this body of knowledge that allow us to conclude that humans, just like any other animal, share a recent common ancestor with close cousins like apes and a less recent common ancestor with mammals, etc...<br /><br />Do you need links? I feel you won't really care so I won't bother!<br /><br />...or I could just have said what AE said "you point to 70 years of breeding to try to prove evolution doesn't work? You know evolution takes place over millions of years, right?"<br /> ;-)World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-89602377932628026962011-09-09T09:43:50.527-04:002011-09-09T09:43:50.527-04:00@JP
"I don't!"
You do. You insist...<b>@JP</b><br /><br /><i> "I don't!"<br /><br />You do. You insist that the Biblical God doesn't exist and evolution created us.</i><br /><br /><b>You never stop being dishonest, do you?</b><br />The phrase 'I don't' came after this:<br /><br /><i>How do you critique other religions pretending to know what they think and why?</i><br /><br /><b>Is this the same? No, not at all!</b><br /><br />You accused me of pretending to 'know what religions think and why' when I DON'T DO THIS.<br /><br />Yes I insist that the Biblical God, specifically the Christian version, doesn't exist, but I am not pretending to know better than anybody else what specialists have to say about such God; I merely listen to the claims and explain why I don't believe them, if asked. Nothing more!<br /><br />Note also that I do prefer to specify 'Christian' since this is the version I am most familiar with. But don't be jealous, I also reject your Judaic version, the Islamic version and the interesting but just as incredible Hindu stories my girlfriend told me.<br /><br />As far as 'evolution created us' goes, this is a terrible wording that only shows your own ignorance and bias toward a creation event. I don't believe we were 'created' in the way you express it so this sentence is void of any meaning. We evolved, just like any other living thing, and still continue to...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-79515765403499521462011-09-09T09:09:05.478-04:002011-09-09T09:09:05.478-04:00JP doesn't make my life miserable, no worried ...JP doesn't make my life miserable, no worried dan.<br /><br />JP- you point to 70 years of breeding to try to prove evolution doesn't work? You know evolution takes place over millions of years, right? :)Abandoning Edenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12696116071749613265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-75127099196053755052011-09-09T08:24:23.400-04:002011-09-09T08:24:23.400-04:00@AE
nope, there are just a bunch of rabbis serious...@AE<br /><i>nope, there are just a bunch of rabbis seriously discussing how to deal with shadim (the jewish version of demons). They also...</i><br /><br />Thanks for the info! Isn't fascinating how religions vary a lot from each other yet often fall back to the same principles; it reminds me of other things that have common ancestors ;)World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-44164892705158926202011-09-09T01:39:09.760-04:002011-09-09T01:39:09.760-04:00To quote the wonderfully iconoclastic Tim Minchin ...To quote the wonderfully iconoclastic Tim Minchin in his ten minute Beat poem/animation <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw" rel="nofollow">Storm</a><br /><br /><i>Storm to her credit despite my derision<br />Keeps firing off clichés with startling precision<br />Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition<br /><br />“You’re so sure of your position<br />But you’re just closed-minded<br />I think you’ll find<br />Your faith in Science and Tests<br />Is just as blind<br />As the faith of any fundamentalist”<br /><br />“Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit<br />Oh wait, my mistake, it’s absolute bullshit.<br />Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed<br />Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.</i>Dan Gambierahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172075070150854447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-61923451571544197542011-09-08T19:36:27.487-04:002011-09-08T19:36:27.487-04:00nope, there are just a bunch of rabbis seriously d...nope, there are just a bunch of rabbis seriously discussing how to deal with shadim (the jewish version of demons). They also warn about not going into abandoned warehouses, cause the shadim might collapse the building on your head. Good advice, but their reasoning makes me wonder how anyone can take what they say seriously. And if I recall correctly there was a story about a rabbi talking to his dead grandmother, or maybe a shade that was impersonating his dead grandmother,or something like that?<br /><br />No wonder they don't let women learn the talmud, they would be leaving in droves.Abandoning Edenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12696116071749613265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-37377780515889029342011-09-08T18:50:17.065-04:002011-09-08T18:50:17.065-04:00I've learned the first book of the talmud (gem...<i>I've learned the first book of the talmud (gemarah brachot) and I can tell you it's a bunch of bullshit. Unless you really believe that if you burn up a cat and put it's ashes in your eyes and look in a mirror at midnight you'll suddenly see a bunch of demons. or if you put flour around your bed at night you'll see demon chicken prints in the morning. Sounds totally plausible...</i><br /><br />Wow, sounds like quite a weird but perhaps interesting story; is there some lesson to be learned from it when not taken literally?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-39553846125013284652011-09-08T17:43:27.850-04:002011-09-08T17:43:27.850-04:00I've learned the first book of the talmud (gem...I've learned the first book of the talmud (gemarah brachot) and I can tell you it's a bunch of bullshit. Unless you really believe that if you burn up a cat and put it's ashes in your eyes and look in a mirror at midnight you'll suddenly see a bunch of demons. or if you put flour around your bed at night you'll see demon chicken prints in the morning. Sounds totally plausible...Abandoning Edenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12696116071749613265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-21417436028562096802011-09-08T15:00:02.649-04:002011-09-08T15:00:02.649-04:00JP wrote:
How do you critique other religions pret...JP wrote:<br /><i>How do you critique other religions pretending to know what they think and why?</i><br /><br /><b>I don't!</b><br /><br />...and as I said...<br /><br />You prefer to act as the spineless troll that you are by posting unrelated link, <b>pushing the same lies again and again and never writing more than a few provocative words.</b>World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-22066316124727174522011-09-08T13:52:33.748-04:002011-09-08T13:52:33.748-04:00You claim to be better than rabbis are in their fi...<i>You claim to be better than rabbis are in their field of expertise. Without ever cracking open a Talmud, you know it's bogus.<br /><br />I can prove immediately and simply that atheists are liars:<br /><br />Atheists do not suggest replacing law enforcement with animal control.<br /><br />Atheists do not advocate global warming.<br /><br />As I explain here,<br /><br />http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/07/two-proofs-that-atheists-are-lying.html<br /><br />these ideas would be consistent with the beliefs of atheists, however atheists don't advocate them because they themselves cannot fully accept their own nonsensical beliefs.</i><br /><br />Again JP, thank you for proving my points.<br /><br />You know nothing about how I think and barely know anything about my beliefs; yet you claim to know more than myself and pretend to have pre-made answers to virtually anything, as if your links to your own blog could serve anything else but boosting your already inflated ego.<br /><br />As for Rabbis, no, you are wrong because I don't claim to know more than them, nor do I reject anything they have to say out of hand. The problem is that there are several points that need to be accepted, on faith, before we even begin to discuss ideas related to God in the context of Judaism. Perhaps I am wrong; I would be open to learn, but I have the feeling that it would fall pretty quickly into the same rhetoric Muslims or Christians use...<br /><br />To be clear, you are the one who lies about others by pretending you know what they think and believe and why. I asked you if you were willing to correct your own mistakes when you make some. I had to ask you at least 3 times before you said that you would, but you never did.<br /><br />You prefer to stick with your own personal interpretations of what others think. In other words, not only are you wrong concerning well established objective science, but you are also wrong when it comes to describing others' position. The worst part is that you refuse to correct this distorted view and refuse to even come close to discuss it. You prefer to act as the spineless troll that you are by posting unrelated link, pushing the same lies again and again and never writing more than a few provocative words.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-41210751404984010492011-09-08T11:36:35.484-04:002011-09-08T11:36:35.484-04:00"You deny the neutral, agenda-free, science o...<i>"You deny the neutral, agenda-free, science of biology."<br /><br />Exactly who decided it's neutral and agenda free? The biologists? I think Judaism is neutral and agenda free. We're just living according to the obvious truth.<br /><br />And if you really believe in evolution, I would stay away from those dark people. You know Darwin predicted their eminent extinction.<br /><br />http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/06/evolution-pseudoscience-of-genocide.html<br /><br />There's real neutral science.</i><br /><br />Good job JP; your comments confirm what I write about you. You don't understand how science works. You don't understand what biology teaches us. You don't understand how it applies when it comes to morality, or how it should not apply I should say.<br /><br />Yes by the way, Judaism, the STORY of Judaism, is neutral and agenda-free. It does not make it 100% accurate. Some of the facts it is based on are accurate for sure. The problem is parting facts from myth, and clearly you fail at this step; but yet you pretend to be better than most biology specialists when it comes to their field of expertise. Fascinating!World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-25328632397946020492011-09-07T23:02:20.639-04:002011-09-07T23:02:20.639-04:00(3rd try part 2...)
As you're probably aware,...(3rd try part 2...)<br /><br /><i>As you're probably aware, but will not or cannot accept, I have completely refuted your creation myth in this post.</i><br /><br />What a joke! Yes I had read your post as I mentioned before. Your old article shows that you understand very little of the evidence behind the Theory of Evolution and pretend that your own little interpretation is better. I am the one who went to read your rambling and then you call me narrow minded?<br /><br />You don't even know what I think, what I believe or how I live. I pointed out to you that I am going out with a "brown" person after you called me a bigot. I told you I rejected some of my previous beliefs because I constantly adjust my views when proven wrong, and so on. You simply assert things without any support.<br /><br />Again, you are a spineless troll JP. You post link instead of discussing, you censor comments on your blog, you attack other people who don't think like you, you offer simple explanations to complex issues and you [<i>auto-censor</i>]. How could we expect to get anything useful from someone like you, when you deny basic science on top of all that?<br /><br />Start by acknowledging the reality you live; then you might be able to offer some valuable opinions.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-29531090647682771192011-09-07T23:01:10.758-04:002011-09-07T23:01:10.758-04:00(3rd try...)
Your choice to call your religious b...(3rd try...)<br /><br /><i>Your choice to call your religious beliefs "science" and everyone else's baseless nonsense is pure chauvanism, again perhaps excusable because of your narrow minded upbringing however still not based on a scintilla of logic.</i><br /><br />Religious beliefs and scientific knowledge are two different things, and everybody has some beliefs that derive from the 2 categories, some more in one than the other. My own personal religious beliefs are virtually non-existent but I will not pretend they are completely non-existent, it is however completely irrelevant to the points I am making here.<br /><br />The important point I am insisting on is that you are denying scientific advancement done by humankind for several decades. It has nothing to do with your religion; it has all to do with your own perception of reality. You deny the neutral, agenda-free, science of biology.<br /><br />I am not even attacking your Judaism; I am not even saying that 'everyone else is wrong' or anything close to this. You are actually the one who is foolish enough to make claims like this. You are the one is arrogant enough to think that is simple life philosophy is all there is, that he has all the questions answered and even pretend to know more about biology than anybody else:World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.com