[Stryke 9]

CP: Try your statements about "oppression". There's a good starting point.

[CP5670]

oppression is the "one of the most important factors in the human equation" you were talking about?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
1. War was a lot more lethal back in the days when a good arm wound would mean gangrene and death in days. And the Thirty Years' War is hardly a prime example of bigotry, being as it was a conflict between several closely related neighbors. They hated each other, but it was on national-ideological grounds, not ethnic or religious.

And if you think Cortez killed more people (not counting inadvertent smallpox victims) than Hitler or Stalin, I recommend you check your history. If you think more people died in the Crusades than in the Cold War, once again, you're sadly mistaken. Quite the reverse is true, we're talking thousands as opposed to millions- but when you factor in the increase in population and broader global reach increasing the warring nations' killing power, comparable.

Last I checked, just about everyone I met on the street passionately hated France for opposing the Iraq invasion and thought camel-humping jokes were funny. Doesn't seem more of an accepting, cosmopolitan society to me. At the moment, it's true, we're in a slight decrease in the general hatred and bigotry, but it's rocketing back up and it was just a temporary dent in a long, historical line that's full of dents but more or less a straight course.

Ok, the first paragragh I dont really have any strong disagreements with

I never said Cortez killed more than Stalin. I put them in the same category. That means anything upwards of several thousand people. This includes Pinochet and includes Bush. I never said more. There are 2 main causes of death. 1 is wars between nations. 2 is the killing of civialians by other civilians due to race, religion etc. In the past 20 years, both of these are, as far as I can see, at an all time low. Maybe there were stretches of time when there was virtually no killing, but the mindset was still there so they never laster. Whaat is different today is that the mindset has changed.

A simple question: If Bush were to bring back slavery, would there be more than a handful (a few thousand) people on the entire planet that would support it? If America were to nuke Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands, would any more than a handful of people not condemn it (I dont mean pooh-pooh, I mean violently vocally disagree)? The massive loss of human life, be it Iraqi or French or American, is no longer a widely accepted concept.

So people make a few French jokes. Those people who tease the French and make camel jokes, would anyone of them cheer at the prospect of 500,000 dead Iraqis? Frenchmen? Russians? Chinese? Nope. People talk, big whoop. During the bombing of Yugoslavia, I ****ing hated the Americans. Still do (though not the as many and not as much...uhm) (see endnote). That doesnt mean that I wanted to kill them.


endnote: When I says I hate Americans, that doesnt mean I hate the people. I'm pissed at them for supprting the government, for living in luxury while the world lives in poverty. I hate them for specific things, but not overall.

[Rictor]

double post

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Ses: What? No, if the majority doesn't give a **** either way, **** them. They don't matter, because it's all the same to them. Now, if they actually want to get up and do something about their situation, say something, that's a different story. But it's ridiculous to dismiss the majority of the voices you hear under the assumption that there's a "silent majority" that disagrees with them and says nothing about it. That's not democracy, that's perverting representation to further one's own views.

 Who said anything about discounting them?  I said what I said, and only what I said.  You are reading other ideas into my words.  I argued that because some group of protestors gets on television is not a sufficient reason to think that the majority agree.  They may or may not, we don't know.  

But in the case under discussion, the liberation of the populace of Iraq is the issue, not the views and interests of one band of protestors.  If you are going to talk about the entire country, talk about the entire country.  If you are going to talk about the one band of protestors, talk about the one band of protestors.  If you believe the protestors are representative of the entire country, provide some substantiation for that claim.  Otherwise, pick one or the other to talk about.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Rictor

So people make a few French jokes. Those people who tease the French and make camel jokes, would anyone of them cheer at the prospect of 500,000 dead Iraqis? Frenchmen? Russians? Chinese? Nope. People talk, big whoop. During the bombing of Yugoslavia, I ****ing hated the Americans. Still do (though not the as many and not as much...uhm) (see endnote). That doesnt mean that I wanted to kill them.

I think that's more due to the development of laws and strict society rather than a change of aggression or emotion. Back in pre-Babylonian days there probably weren't explicit laws all over the place forbiding or punishing aggression (I'm not sure if they were present in Babylon either) and people would be more free to express whatever they thought (not just like "I hate you") through force.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Rictor


When has it been less? If the witch hunts were to happen today, they would be condemned by most people. Why? Either because people are kinder than before, or more logical becasue they dont believe in superstition. Both are admirable traits.

Instead we've recently painted Communists as evil, or more recently had a rash of people thinking Muslims are evil, or conversely that America is the Great Satan, and kill each other that way.  Nazis killed Jews just because they were Jews.  At least the witch hunters had a good reason.

Yes, love is good too, and also applicalbe. Kindness too.

Well, there are implications to that.  Love wants the best for another, which entails that there is a particular best for the other.  Love, therefore, will not be willing to say that anything goes like apathetic tolerance will, but will insist on actually caring about people and trying for their best even when they don't like it.  So where you say we need to be more tolerant, letting people do whatever the heck they want because we don't give a damn about them, I say that kind of apathy is the most disgusting, soggy, slimy excuse for an ethical value ever devised.  Love is not tolerant.  It is self-sacrificial, and patient, and kind, and in the last resort will always allow the other the freedom to destroy himself, but only with agony and tears and a hell of a lot of "intolerant" attempts to get him not to.

When people put more weight in religion, which cannot be proven, than if scientific fact, which can be proven, I call all illogical. No religion has outright rejected all science, just those theories that contended with religion. If all theories overlapped, and threated to destabilize, religious teaching, they would all be condemned. Its not that they accepted science, they simply didnt have a quarrel with it.

1) You claim such theories exist.  Present them.
2) Your atheism (I assume you are an atheist) is every bit as much an "unprovable" belief as a Buddhist's or Muslim's or Christian's or Jain's or Taoist's or what have you.  If I say the universe behaves in an orderly fashion because God maintains it that way, and you say it behaves in an orderly fashion because it just somehow does, neither claim can be "proven".  All we can "prove" is that we have observed orderliness in the universe's behaviour.

Can you claim that those people were more tolerant, or kinder, or gentler, or had more love for their fellow man, than today?

Neither more, nor less.  You leave out the monks who brokered peace between warring factions, the doctors who tended the sick despite knowing that, however this mysterious plague was transferred, they were surely going to catch it, the teachers who devoted themselves to educating others, the unnamed, unknown billions who lived quiet lives helping their neighbours at harvest time and lending them a cup of suger when they needed it.  

And even those Crusades you mention were not quite the horror show of hatred you imagine.  Those who sent out on those quests did not say "Let's go kill us some Arab bastards!" but rather saw themselves on a quest against injustice and evil being perpetrated by other men.  And at the same time as the Second Crusade was underway, you also have St. Francis of Assisi travelling to Egypt to meet the Sultan to try to end the war and bring him the most wonderful gift of joy and love he knew: his faith.  These sorts of arguments you are making are based entirely on skewed "history" and a whole huge pile of half-baked characters of reality.

*Bunch of stuff to me and Stryke about 1) madmen getting power, 2) people opposing hypothetical reinstatements of slavery or nuking Iraq, 3) supposed "all-time lows" in rates of people killing one another, 4) the argument that killing a few thousand people is in a different category of evil on its own*

Regarding 1 and 2, may I bring back the classic 20th c. example of Nazi Germany?  Sure, Hilter was an evil madman, but what did the people do?  Mostly, they went along with it.  Lots and lots of otherwise perfectly normal people became guards in the camps or processors of extermination forms or any of a myriad of jobs that supported the Nazi bureaucracy.  And this was in a nation that is universally regarded as having been at the very peak of human culture at that time.  They were the most developed, most civilised, most intellectual, most artistic bunch of people around.  And they did this.  And so could any of us.  Anyone who denies this is lying to himself.

Regarding 3, .  That is so fantastically wrong, I can't believe it.  Take what is goin on in the Sudan right now.  What, you haven't heard about that?  That's because it has been going on for decades, so it is old news, and old news doesn't get ratings on TV.  People in South Sudan are regularly captured as slaves, killed, raped, and pillaged by those from North Sudan.  It is standard practice.  And no one cares.  Because it doesn't get ratings, and we don't really want to think about it anyway.  We are slaughtering each other all the time.  But the news only shows us shocking snippets, and then we forget that it happened and go back to our daily lives.  It is all we can do, perhaps, but that is the only reason why you would think our mutual slaughter is at any sort of a low.

Regarding 4, would 1999 people killed be a different category from 2000?  How about 1998? 1598?  How many do I have to kill before I am a full-fledged madman instead of merely a not-very-nice-fellow?  If I kill 756 people, torture 16 kittens, and pull the wings off of 7 flies, does your contention that the world is improving still hold?

[Zeronet]

All that picture shows is some former iraqi soldiers want some pay or their job back, which they'll get soon when the new Iraqi army is formed.

Thing people don't seem to realise is, you can't rebuild a country in a week, or a month, or in two months.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Instead we've recently painted Communists as evil, or more recently had a rash of people thinking Muslims are evil, or conversely that America is the Great Satan, and kill each other that way.  Nazis killed Jews just because they were Jews.  At least the witch hunters had a good reason.

Yes, but although Americans hate the Muslims and Muslims hate the Americans, there are few on either side that believe so strongly in the mindset that they are willing to kill each other. Out of about 1 billion Muslims (I'm guessing, but there abouts) on Earth, how many have commited terrorist acts? Or killed Americans? or killed eachother? Not many. If someone says "I hate the Great Satan, but I dont hate them so much as to kill them", then to me thats not real hatred, only anger, frustration or a certain degree of social conditioning.

Well, there are implications to that.  Love wants the best for another, which entails that there is a particular best for the other.  Love, therefore, will not be willing to say that anything goes like apathetic tolerance will, but will insist on actually caring about people and trying for their best even when they don't like it.  So where you say we need to be more tolerant, letting people do whatever the heck they want because we don't give a damn about them, I say that kind of apathy is the most disgusting, soggy, slimy excuse for an ethical value ever devised.  Love is not tolerant.  It is self-sacrificial, and patient, and kind, and in the last resort will always allow the other the freedom to destroy himself, but only with agony and tears and a hell of a lot of "intolerant" attempts to get him not to.

I dont see how you regard tolerance as apathy. Maybe you misunderstand me. Tolerance is not as full-blown as love, but it is better than hatred or even neutrality. If I tolerate you, to me that means that I ackowledge the valididity of your opinion even though I disagree. How can you see that as apathy? Opinions will differ. Tolerance allows people to ackowledge that you cant force everyone into your own mindset, and that you have to accept them even though they may be different.

1) You claim such theories exist.  Present them.
2) Your atheism (I assume you are an atheist) is every bit as much an "unprovable" belief as a Buddhist's or Muslim's or Christian's or Jain's or Taoist's or what have you.  If I say the universe behaves in an orderly fashion because God maintains it that way, and you say it behaves in an orderly fashion because it just somehow does, neither claim can be "proven".  All we can "prove" is that we have observed orderliness in the universe's behaviour..

It has been proven that the Earth revolves around the sun. It has been proven that Earth is not flat. It has been proven that the universe is filled with billion of stars and galaxies, and that when we look upwards, we see the universe and not heaven. I could go on and on. When faith and reason cross paths, you must chose one. To this day, people have commited more acts of brutality in the name of faith than in the name of reason. I regard reason as "better", simply becuase it can be disproven. If a man believes in God, theres nothing you can do that will change his mind. If he says, "God is telling me to kill", you cant talk him out of it. However, if he says "I want to kill all Arabs because they are terrorists", that theory can easily be shot down with easy to obtain facts. And I'm not an athiest.

Neither more, nor less.  You leave out the monks who brokered peace between warring factions, the doctors who tended the sick despite knowing that, however this mysterious plague was transferred, they were surely going to catch it, the teachers who devoted themselves to educating others, the unnamed, unknown billions who lived quiet lives helping their neighbours at harvest time and lending them a cup of suger when they needed it. .

Yes, but those same monks later travelled to America and imposed their culture and religion on the natives. At the end of a gun. Faith compels great acts of kindness in individuals, but also great acts of violence in groups. A monk is kind, compassionate and caring. The Church is anything but. It is the latter that has had more influence, as far as I know. Those living quietly, giving crops to their neighboors, well at best they're neutral. At worst they directly or indirectly furthered the cause of their Church and their government, which more or less killed people as it saw fit. When before has the concept of charity existed? Or the antiwar movement. A hundred years ago, these were outrageous ideas. Look at how widespread they are now.

And even those Crusades you mention were not quite the horror show of hatred you imagine.  Those who sent out on those quests did not say "Let's go kill us some Arab bastards!" but rather saw themselves on a quest against injustice and evil being perpetrated by other men.  And at the same time as the Second Crusade was underway, you also have St. Francis of Assisi travelling to Egypt to meet the Sultan to try to end the war and bring him the most wonderful gift of joy and love he knew: his faith.  These sorts of arguments you are making are based entirely on skewed "history" and a whole huge pile of half-baked characters of reality..

I dont pretend to have studied in great depth (beyond the scope of highschool history class and my own research into subjects that interested me) any of the people or events which you mention. However, what I can tell you is that the motivation for both the Crusaders and for St.Francis of Assisi was their faith. The one group killed becuase of it, the other brought peace because of it. Would one man's struggle for peace be more important than the actions of thousands, at the hands of which tens if not hundreds of thousands of people died? I'm sure that in Nazi Germany, there were a few individuaals who fought against the Nazis, who protected the Jews even at the expense of their own lives. As I've said, a person is good, people are bad. The actions of a few do not excuse the actions of many.

Regarding 1 and 2, may I bring back the classic 20th c. example of Nazi Germany?  Sure, Hilter was an evil madman, but what did the people do?  Mostly, they went along with it.  Lots and lots of otherwise perfectly normal people became guards in the camps or processors of extermination forms or any of a myriad of jobs that supported the Nazi bureaucracy.  And this was in a nation that is universally regarded as having been at the very peak of human culture at that time.  They were the most developed, most civilised, most intellectual, most artistic bunch of people around.  And they did this.  And so could any of us.  Anyone who denies this is lying to himself.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. Why dont the Nazis have any serious power today? 50 years ago, the people of Germany, and the world, supported the exermination of the Jews. Today, no such thing could happen. If killings persists, it is because the majority of the world does not know about it, not becuase they support it. I doubt that any significant number of people would support an extremists regime, be it Christian or Muslim or whatever. Yes, there are mass killings in Sudan and in other places, but what part of the populace supports this? I would guess that most of the people suffer at the hands of such regimes, and thefore do not suport them. Take Iraq. Or Yugoslavia. The dictators did not stay in power because the people supported them. They stayed in power becuase people did not have the strenght to overthrow them. In Yugoslavia, the people overthrough Milosevic as soon as they were able. And Yugoslvia wasnt even that extreme, it wasnt a police state. You think that just becuase someone is in power, he must have the support of the people. You think that if Saddam decides to go gas some Kurds, that all the people support it. Do you support the war in Iraq? Does everyone in the US support it? No.

Regarding 3, .  That is so fantastically wrong, I can't believe it.  Take what is goin on in the Sudan right now.  What, you haven't heard about that?  That's because it has been going on for decades, so it is old news, and old news doesn't get ratings on TV.  People in South Sudan are regularly captured as slaves, killed, raped, and pillaged by those from North Sudan.  It is standard practice.  And no one cares.  Because it doesn't get ratings, and we don't really want to think about it anyway.  We are slaughtering each other all the time.  But the news only shows us shocking snippets, and then we forget that it happened and go back to our daily lives.  It is all we can do, perhaps, but that is the only reason why you would think our mutual slaughter is at any sort of a low..

The news shows us what the government wants us to see. Thats why it is our duty to look beyond that, and to find the facts. Yes, there is terrible stuff in the Sudan, in Chechnyia etc. However, the more I learn about these situation, the more I see that they are caused not by some freaky, scary hatred, but rather by the conditions that exist. And in of the cases, many of the conditions exist due to some powerful country (US, Russia etc) creating hositle condiitions so they can profit from it. For example, when you saw "coverage" of the war in Kosovo (you know the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs back in '99), you must have though that those people were savages. That is becuase that is the outlook that the US governemnt wanted you to have, and becuase CNN spun it that way. They were talking about 400,000 dead people. Thats pretty bad. You know what the number of bodies that has been found to date is? Around 3000. Thats bad, but not catastrophic. And among those 3000, there are many Serbs too. So instead of genocide, we find the effects of a geurilla war fought between two enemies of comparable might. And on a side note, do you doubt that the US has killed as much or more Iraqis in the war? So when the Serbs do it, its prtrayed as the next Nazi empire, but when the US does it, no one flinches.

Regarding 4, would 1999 people killed be a different category from 2000?  How about 1998? 1598?  How many do I have to kill before I am a full-fledged madman instead of merely a not-very-nice-fellow?  If I kill 756 people, torture 16 kittens, and pull the wings off of 7 flies, does your contention that the world is improving still hold?

You're intentionally misunderstanding my point. You know what I meant.

[Stryke 9]

Ses: I talk about the active protestors in Iraq as tjhe people of Iraq because they evidently outnumber the active pro-US Iraqis (and are growing), and they're all I can ever find news about. Shall I pretend there's an active majority supporting occupation I just never hear of? That's taking a rather long leap of faith just to arrive at a possible alternate conclusion. Hence my previous post.


Zeronet: Uh-huh. You do realize that Afghanistan has had more than months, that Karzai can't get out of Kabul (nor can anyone under his control), that the entire nation has gone right back into the violent warlord anarchy that was there before, that it's the same old Taliban boys who are running everything? Bush hasn't even gotten his first try right, and this one's going in the same direction his Afghan policy did. How much blind faith in Bush is one expected to have, eh?


Rictor-At random:

So, it's not the Sudanese that are enslaving people, it's the US. But the US doesn't have any problem with the Sudanese and is doing it in the most egalitarian way possible?

And have you seen the Earth orbit the Sun? Or do you take that for granted as an article of faith?

You don't pretend to know much about it, yet you make a lot of assumptions. Religion was closely tied to politics back then (even more so than now), but politics was the prime motivator behind the Crusades. The retaliation for the siege of Constantinople, and eventual counterattack, were completely political in nature, and were turned into some religious holy war in order to get the attention of the masses- the same way Bush goes on about God being on our side to get support here. And another thing- make another post like that, without referring to the Crusades or conquistadors once, and see if you can carry your thesis on that people are more tolerant than ever. Those are two major events over centuries of time, as opposed to the many that have been enumerated now, in the past century.

Now, are you done yet? Can I have my thread back? Go spam somewhere else, I'm not in the mood.


All: Don't talk to him. If you ignore him, he'll go away, or at least maybe try to make sense and get back on topic.

[Stunaep]

Okay, I'm terribly pissed at some of the narrow-mindedness I've seen in the last few posts in this thread, so I'll just take up Stryke's first post.

I hear we're almost down to 20 a day now. Apparently, those cursed savages don't appreciate the full benefits of an American-installed democracy. Oh, wait, did I say "democracy"? Certainly not, they'd probably vote for someone we wouldn't like, and we can't have that. Let's just install another bloody militaristic dictatorship, a more effective puppet government this time, but one that doesn't sound too imperialistic... oh! I've got it! Viceroy! Very nice, very Victorian feel to it, eh? Well, at least we can keep those bloody Shias from speaking their piece, electing some pagan Mussulman, what ho!

We have been saying this since day 1, haven't we? I mean, why did you US'ns invade Iraq in the first place? Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Now, that the US control Iraq, how many WoMD's have been found?

0. None. Zilch. Zap. Null.

Okay, now that we've proven that attacking Iraq had nothing to do with the safety of the world, let's see how the war made the Iraqi people better.

Some ten thousand were killed. Cities laid in ruins. The economy pushed back some twenty years. Of course, this is all totally acceptable, because, now the Iraqis live in a peaceful democratic state.

Except, of course, they don't.

And as my last point, I'd like to state, that the US HAVEN'T EVEN FINISHED WITH AFGANISTHAN! It's back to what it was  before the US invaded them. Except before it was ruled by Taliban, now it's ruled by former Taliban warlords.

[01010]

There was a war?

[Stryke 9]

Or a Hollywood blockbuster, depending on how you look at it.

You know, it occurs to me... this is not gonna be one of those wars they make a war movie out of in ten years. I could just see it now... "Whack-an-Arab 2003: The Revenge"

[Stunaep]

Kinda like why the germans haven't made a lot of WW2 movies, is it not?

[01010]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Or a Hollywood blockbuster, depending on how you look at it.

You know, it occurs to me... this is not gonna be one of those wars they make a war movie out of in ten years. I could just see it now... "Whack-an-Arab 2003: The Revenge"

Why not, Three Kings anyone?

I dunno, I find it incredibly difficult to have an opinion, not due to apathy but because of the conflict between good journalism and a good story that most news companies seem to suffer nowadays and I don't have time to read between the lines and find out more for myself.

To be honest, while I normally try to keep tabs on what's going on in the world and keep myself informed, I find it very difficult to believe anything I read anymore because you never seem to have a full truth on anything where there happens to be money involved.

[Rictor]

Stryke: do you ever read my posts, or do you just assume what I'm going to say. It doesnt sound like you read them at all.

So whatever you disagree with is spam? whatever you feel is not a valid arguement is spam? I dont think so. And BTW I am on topic. The topic was the US occupation of Iraq. As you read the subsequent posts, you see how that goes from a specific case to arguements about the general case. Should I pretend that the rest of history is not at all related to this subject, just so you can feel as though if you've stayed on topic. Being more angry does not make you more right.

I take it that you're one of those people who believes in the overall crapiness of the human race? That we are all opportunistic killers, religious fanatcis and that theres very little hope of changing that. Well them, let me ask you this. Other than some strange sense of irony and a contempt for almost everyone around you, why do you bother sticking around? Why do you bother living if you believe that all those around you are and will always be evil, greedy, intolerant etc?

I could probably make the same arguement as I already have without refering to historical facts. But thats what my whole arguement is based on, comparison between modern times and history. When you compare a and b, you can't simply not use b in your arguement. If my points so far do not make sense to you, please ask me to clarify specific things. Dont just write me off a an inferior asshole, beside whom your majesty is even grander...or something. If my arguements dont make sense, then either you're not tying hard enough (cause they make sense to me) or ask me to clarify. Otherwise, shut up.

No I have never seen the sun revolve around the Earth. However, I have never seen God. Atleast the Sun theory follows a logical train of thought. Atleast it tries to be proven, even if the evidence may be wrong (small chance of that, but still a chance). I have never seen anyone try to logically explain religion, nor have I seen evidence. Some evidence, however

Governments are killers, opportunists, greedy sumbags whom play of peoples fears and desires to gain power. I am not contending that fact. They are as much of that today as ever. However, what I meant was the people are better. You fail to accept a simple truth. The horrors of the past: The Holocaust, the Vietnam War, Stalinist rule, slavery, 300 years of imperialist rule, the Crusades (you can ignore the Crusades if you want, my arguement can stand without ithem) etc etc. would NOT be accepted, tolerated, embraced today. If you think otherwise, thats your thing, but I doubt you do. If someone were to try to openly reinstate any such rascist, religious, murderous policies, they would not get very far. You can argue that Bush has done exaclty that, however there are two main differences. One, is that the new American nationalism crap is much less in both quantity (how many people embrace it) and quantity (how far they're willing to go) than before. The second difference is that he is not openly advocating hate against Muslims. He is doing it sneakily. The intention matters.

Now whether or not people are more gulible is another topic, but I think that with the Internet and alternate sources, people are FAR more skeptical than ever. You take the US as a model of the world view. This is simply not the case. Europe for example, is about half-way between the US and what could be considered an achievable degree of idealism (well, more like 1/4 of the way there, but you get the point). In matter of religion, political awareness, culture, tolerance of other viewpoints etc, I consider Europe to be far better off than the US. The US is among the worst examples of humanity, dont take it to be the standard.

And keep that ego under control, you're not superior to anyone, including me.

[Stunaep]

Full truth in journalism is by definition impossible. That would require objectivity in the article.

There is no way anyone can be that objective.

[Stryke 9]

Full truth's kinda boring, anyway. So many qualifying statements, so much gray area.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by Rictor

No I have never seen the sun revolve around the Earth. However, I have never seen God. Atleast the Sun theory follows a logical train of thought. Atleast it tries to be proven, even if the evidence may be wrong (small chance of that, but still a chance). I have never seen anyone try to logically explain religion, nor have I seen evidence. Some evidence, however
 

oh well, n/m. I begin to see Stryke's point.

[Stryke 9]

I said ignore him. He wants to babble on for a page and a half at a time, let him make his own thread.

And yeah, he's one of the people who treats science as another religion. They're far from uncommon. They are not the sort of people to have a philosophical argument with, since by defintion they're anything but.