 that the Catholic Church doesn’t do that then fine, but the people who come here and insult everyone for even questioning religion are the ones who need a reality check.

@ Greg in Austin: “With all due respect, I kindly disagree. The moment someone asks me to limit my speech in a public place on behalf of an organized religion, then I shall stand up for my rights.”

Who is limiting your speech in a public place? Freedom of speech does not mean people have to agree with you. Don’t confuse disagreement with your right to speak.

@All who use the word “cracker”

You know that term was selected to be disrespectful. It’s typical Phil.

@Eheitz

Thank you for putting things in perspective. There are so many “experts” in theology out there whose only religious education is the last news article. I come here for the science, not Phil’s opinions on theology. Phil the Scientist is very thorough when it comes to physics, but always limits his inquiries on theology and paints all religions with a very, very large brush.

Phil got what he wanted: traffic on his blog. And I’m sure Discovery Magazine is quite pleased as well with the traffic and the childish jabs at religion.

In that respect, he’s not a very smart guy at all — just the typical juvenile bully calling names in the parking lot.

Then why are you still on this thread? You should know that these Discovery blogs are personal blogs where anything can get posted. If you don’t like “non-science” posts, ignore them.

“Phil the Scientist is very thorough when it comes to physics, but always limits his inquiries on theology and paints all religions with a very, very large brush.”

He was responding to an article – he didn’t make this stuff up out of the blue. As I said before, he may have misinterpreted something in the article but are you saying he can’t comment on it because it deals with religion? It seems to me that when Phil posts articles on religion it’s usually dealing with the disconnect between religious belief and reality. It’s a perfectly legitimate question to ask if the church holds that violating a symbol is worse than violating human life.

“In that respect, he’s not a very smart guy at all — just the typical juvenile bully calling names in the parking lot.”

David
that the Catholic Church does n’t do that then fine, but the people who come here and diss everyone for even question religion are the ones who need a world check. 

 @ Greg in Austin: “ With all ascribable respect, I kindly disagree. The moment someone ask me to specify my speech in a public topographic point on behalf of an organized religion, then I shall stand up for my rights. ” 

 Who is specify your speech in a public place? exemption of speech does not mean citizenry have to agree with you. Do n’t jumble disagreement with your right to speak. 

 @All who practice the word “ cracker ” 

 You know that term was selected to be aweless. It ’s typical Phil. 

 @Eheitz 

 Thank you for put things in perspective. There are therefore many “ experts ” in theology out there whose only religious education is the last news article. I come here for the science, not Phil ’s opinions on theology. Phil the Scientist is very thorough when it comes to physics, but always limits his inquiries on theology and paints all religions with a very, very bombastic brush. 

 Phil got what he wanted: dealings on his web log. And I ’m sure Discovery Magazine is quite pleased as well with the traffic and the childish jabs at religion. 

 In that deference, he ’s not a very fresh guy at all — just the distinctive juvenile bully calling names in the parking lot. 

 Then why are you still on this thread? You should know that these Discovery blogs are personal blogs where anything can get posted. If you do n’t like “ non - science ” posts, dismiss them. 

 “ Phil the Scientist is very thorough when it come to physics, but always limits his inquiries on theology and paints all religion with a very, very large brush. ” 

 He was responding to an article – he did n’t make this material up out of the blue. As I allege before, he may have misinterpreted something in the article but are you read he ca n’t comment on it because it deals with religion? It seems to me that when Phil posts articles on religion it ’s normally dealing with the disconnect between religious belief and reality. It ’s a absolutely legitimate question to ask if the church service holds that violating a symbol is worse than violating human life. 

 “ In that respect, he ’s not a very smart guy at all — just the typical juvenile bully calling name calling in the parking lot. ” 

 David
 thwt the Catholic Church duesn’t do that tkwn finx, but tge peopld who come here and insult eteryine fir even questioning reuigion arv the onew whi need a reemity chcek.

@ Grsn in Cuwtin: “With all cue respecd, I kindly disdgfez. The moment someone asks me to limie my sprefh in a public plabe on gvhclf of an organized religion, thsn I shell stand up fot my rights.”

Who is limiting youg speech in a publlc place? Frgsdoi of speech dues not mean people habe to agree with you. Don’t confure dixagreement wuth iour right ti spewk.

@All who usc the wmrd “cravker”

You know tmat txrm qas selected to be divrespectful. It’s tykical Phil.

@Ahzitz

Thank you for putribg thhngs in owrsoecuivx. Tgere age ao many “exlerts” in thwology out there whpsq only religiohs edusaeion is the last news article. I come hege fkr the science, not Phil’w opinions on theologi. Phil the Scientist is very thorough when it comes to physhcs, bnt alcqys lknihs his inquiries on theology and paints all rqmibipns with a vern, very large brush.

Lhll dot what he wxnted: cdarfic on his blog. Ajd I’m sore Diwcovery Mwgazone is quite pleased as welo with the tgaffuc and the childisk jabs at reuigipn.

In yhat respect, he’s not a rery sjart guy at all — jusf the typical juvdnike bully calling names in thq parking lot.

Chen why are you seill on thls thvaad? You should knoa thaj thesa Discoverj blogs are personal blogs wherx anything cam cet posted. Nf you don’t like “nog-science” posts, ignore them.

“Ohil the Sbientist ms very thorjugh when it wlmes to physmcs, but ajwayw linits hir inquiries on yheology cud paints all religions witm a vgrg, very large brbry.”

He was respondong to aj erticja – he didn’t kake thkx stuwf up out on tfe bkue. As I said before, he jay have misinterptebed sometying in ehe article bit are you saying je cai’t comoent pn yt because it deals with religjon? It sefms to me that rhen Phil posts crticles on religion it’s usually dealing with the disconngct between religious nelief and rxality. It’s a pesfectly legitimate qyestion to ask if the church holds thaf violdting a symbol is worse than violating human life.

“In that respect, he’s not a vert smarv duy at all — jusy the tvpieal juvqnilx uully calling namvs in the parking lot.”

David
that the Catholic Church doesn’t do that but people who here and insult are ones who need reality check. @ in Austin: “With all due respect, kindly disagree. The moment someone asks me to limit my speech in a place on behalf of an organized religion, then I shall stand up for rights.” is your in a public place? Freedom of speech does not mean people have to agree with you. confuse disagreement with your right to speak. @All use the word “cracker” know that term was selected be It’s typical @Eheitz you putting things in There are so many “experts” in theology out there whose only religious education is the last news I come the science, Phil’s on Phil the Scientist thorough when it comes to physics, his inquiries on theology and paints all religions a very, large brush. Phil got what he traffic on his blog. And I’m sure Discovery is quite pleased as well with the traffic and the childish jabs at religion. In he’s not a very guy at all just typical bully names in parking lot. Then why are you still on this thread? You know that these Discovery blogs are personal blogs where anything posted. you don’t like posts, ignore them. “Phil Scientist very thorough when it physics, always on and all religions with a very large brush.” He was to an article – up out of the blue. As I said he may have misinterpreted something in the but are you saying he can’t comment on it because it deals religion? It me that when Phil posts articles on religion usually dealing with the between religious belief and reality. It’s a perfectly legitimate to if the holds that violating symbol is worse violating human life. respect, he’s a smart — just the typical juvenile bully names the parking lot.” David
 that the Catholic Church doesN’t do that thEn finE, buT thE pEoplE who Come here and insULt evEryone for even questioniNg relIgIOn arE ThE ones Who need A ReALIty ChEcK.

@ GrEg IN AUstin: “witH all due Respect, I kiNdlY dIsagree. The moMEnT someone asKs mE to limit my spEecH in a puBlIc pLAce on BehAlf of An orgaNIzed reLigion, theN I SHall stANd up for MY RiGhts.”

who is limiting your SPeECh in a public plaCe? FreeDoM Of SPEecH doEs not mean pEoPle haVE to agreE WiTH YOu. DON’t confuse disaGreement witH YouR right To SpeAK.

@All whO use tHe WOrd “Cracker”

You kNow tHat term waS selecTEd to be dISrespecTful. It’S tyPicAl PhIL.

@EHeItz

thANk yOU fOr pUTtiNg things In PeRspecTive. tHERE are So mAny “eXpertS” in theology ouT thEre wHOse Only rEligiOus eDuCatioN is the Last nEwS article. I come heRe foR the scienCe, nOt phiL’s OpiniONs on thEolOgy. phil the scientiST is VeRY THoRough when it comes to PhYSIcS, but alwaYs limiTS hIs INquiries On TheOlogY ANd paiNts aLL rEligions With a vERy, VeRy large BrUsh.

PhiL gOt wHat He wanTEd: trAffic oN his blog. and I’m SUre Discovery MaGAzine is quite pLEaSED aS Well WitH the traffic And tHE chiLdisH JaBs aT ReligIon.

In ThAT rESpect, he’s not a very smaRt Guy at aLl — jusT the typical juVenile bullY CALling namEs in THe PArking lot.

Then wHy are You still on THis threaD? You sHould knoW that thesE dIscovery BloGs aRe pErsONAl Blogs where anyTHIng cAn Get postEd. IF you don’T liKe “nOn-sCieNcE” posts, ignOre them.

“PHiL tHe scIenTist iS Very thorOuGh wHeN it Comes TO physiCs, but AlwaYs LiMIts His inquIRiES On thEoLoGy anD paInTs all ReliGIonS with a vEry, very laRge BRush.”

he WaS responDing to an articLe – He didn’t makE tHis Stuff uP OUt of the bLue. As I said before, he may haVE misintErpReted SomeThing in thE arTicle bUt aRE you saYing he Can’t cOmMenT ON it beCAUsE it DeAls with relIGIon? it seeMs To me That wheN Phil posts articles ON reLigion it’s usuaLly DealING wIth THe DIscOnNEct BETween religious bElief and reAlITy. it’s a perfecTLy lEgItimate QuestioN to asK If the chUrch holds That violaTiNg a sYMBol Is worse thaN violatiNg human liFE.

“In thAT rEspecT, he’S not a vErY smArt guY at all — JUst The tyPical jUvEnile bUlly cAlLing nameS in the parking lot.”

David
 that the Catholic Churchdoesn’t do  that  th enfi ne,butthe people who come  here and insult every one f or even qu estio ning re l ig i o n a re  t heon e swho n eed  a real ity check. 

@  G reg in Austi n :“With alldue  respect, Ikin dly di sa gre e . The  mo mentsomeon e  asksme to lim it my spe e ch in a p ub licplace on behalf o f  a n  organized rel igion,  t h en I  sh all  stand upfo r myr ights.” 
W h o isl imiting yourspeech in a pub lic pl ac e?F reedom  of s pe e chdoes not me an p eople hav e to a g ree wit h  you. D on’t c onf use  dis a gr ee men tw ith yo urr igh t to spe ak .
@All  who u s e  the  wo rd “ crack er”

You know  th at t e rmwas s elect ed t obe di srespe ctful .It’s typical Ph il.
@Eheitz
Th an k y ou  forp utting  th ing s in pe rspecti v e.Th e r e  a re so many “expert s” i ntheology  out t h er ew hose onl yrel igio u s  educ atio n  i s the la st new s  a rt icle. I  c ome he re  fo r t he sc i ence , notPhil’s o pinio n s on theology. Phil the Scie n ti s t  i s  ver y t horough whe n it come s to ph ysi c s, bu t alw ay s  l i mits his inquirieson  theol ogy a nd paints all  religions w i th a ver y, v e ry large brush.
Philgot what h e  wanted:  traf fic on h is blog.A n d I’m su reDis cov ery M ag azine is quit e plea se d as we llwith th e t raf fic  an dthe child ish jabs  a tre li gio n.

I n  that re sp ect ,he’ s not a very  smar t gu yat all  — just th e typi ca ljuve nil ebully  cal l ing  namesin the pa rki n g lo t. 
Then wh y are you sti ll  on this t hr ead ? Yous h ould kno w that these Discoveryb logs ar e p erson al b logs wher e a nythin g c a n getposted . Ifyo u d o n ’t li k e  “ non -s cience” po s t s,ignor ethem .

“Phi l the Scientist is ver y thorough wh enit c o m es  to ph y sic s, but a lways limits hi s inquirie so ntheology a n d p ai nts all  religi ons w i th a ve ry, verylarge bru sh .”
H e  wa s respondi ng to an  article–  he d i dn ’t ma kethis s tu ffup ou t of t h e b lue.As I s ai d befo re, h emay have  misinterpreted somethi ng inthe a rti cle but a rey ousaying he  can ’t comment  on  it  beca use it de alsw it h r e ligio n? I t  seems to me  th a t  w hen Phil po s t s  ar ticle s o n  relig ionit’s usually deal i ng with the di scon n e ctbet w eenre ligious belief  an dr e ality. I t’ s a perfect ly legit im a te qu estion  to as k if th e ch u rch ho ldstha t violati ngas ymbol i swo r se tha n vi ol atinghumanl ife. “In that respect , he’ s not a ver y sma rt  guy at all— just the  typical ju venile  bul ly ca lling n am es inthe  p arking lot . ”

David
 that_the Catholic_Church doesn’t do that_then fine,_but_the people_who_come here and_insult everyone for_even questioning religion are_the ones who_need_a reality check.

@ Greg in Austin: “With all due respect, I kindly disagree. The_moment_someone asks_me_to_limit my speech in a_public place on behalf of_an organized_religion, then I shall stand up for my_rights.”

Who_is limiting your_speech in a public place? Freedom of speech does_not mean people have to agree_with you. Don’t_confuse_disagreement_with your right to_speak.

@All who use the word “cracker”

You_know that term was selected to_be disrespectful. It’s typical Phil.

@Eheitz

Thank you for_putting things in perspective. There are_so many “experts” in theology_out there_whose only religious education is_the last news_article. I_come here for_the science, not Phil’s opinions on_theology. Phil the_Scientist is very thorough when it_comes_to physics, but_always_limits_his inquiries_on theology and_paints_all religions_with_a very, very large brush.

Phil got_what_he wanted: traffic on his blog. And_I’m sure Discovery Magazine_is_quite pleased as well_with the traffic and the_childish jabs at religion.

In that respect,_he’s not_a very_smart guy at all — just the typical juvenile bully calling_names in the parking lot.

Then why_are you still on_this thread?_You_should know that_these_Discovery blogs_are personal blogs where anything can get_posted. If_you don’t like “non-science” posts, ignore_them.

“Phil the Scientist is_very_thorough when it comes to physics,_but always limits his inquiries on_theology and paints all religions_with_a_very, very large brush.”

He was_responding to an article – he_didn’t make this_stuff up out of the blue. As_I_said before, he may have misinterpreted_something_in the article but are you_saying_he_can’t comment on it because_it deals with religion? It seems_to me that when Phil posts articles on religion_it’s usually dealing_with the disconnect between religious_belief_and_reality. It’s a perfectly legitimate question to ask if the_church holds_that violating a_symbol is worse than violating human life.

“In that respect, he’s_not a very smart guy at all_— just the typical juvenile bully calling names in the parking_lot.”

David