Speaking of BIZARRE. <_< ... So many points, so little time.
1) "The divergence of the two is so profound, that if you didn’t know they were both capitalists you in fact wouldn’t think they were."
That's one of the nice things about capitalism, and that it leaves room for both atheists and religious people. Altho' there were also Christian Communists/Socialists back during the late 19th/early 20th centuries as well (one famous Christian socialist was the author of the original Pledge of Allegiance, ... but I digress. ;) ) And apparently Spencer (him being an atheist, along with thousands and thousands of other atheists), didn't go the Communist route, which kinda undermines the atheism being the basis for Communism argument.
2) "If in fact it had not been for Adam Smith, and those who held moral values, the current economic capitalistic society of today, might not have been anything like we have now. Labor laws, anti-trust legislation and social programs combined with capitalism by the government ensured that Herbert Spencer’s brand of evolutionary atheism did not take root."
... which further spouts the discredited conservative party line that atheists lack moral values. Discredited I say? Yup, as there have been a good number of atheists throughout history who have embraced and championed for the same labor laws, anti-trust legislation and social programs that have been combined with capitalism, much of which a good number of conservative Christian politicians have been *against* over the many years. Ie., it just shows that there were and are a mixture of religious/atheist activists in those areas, and where no one group can make exclusive moral claim to any of them.
Oh by the way, interesting that you make claim of Smith, a 'deist', for the religious side. Many conservative Christians, both back then and now, would say that deists are "atheists who go to church". Many accusations have been made about deists (and many of their ideas re: Christianity) being atheists in one form or another. But now, when it suits your purposes, you don't mind accepting a deist into your 'moral, religious camp', ... until its safe to call them atheists again, I imagine. <_<
3) "Communism is atheism by definition. Since Charles Darwin’s theories are the only ones still touted today, it remains communism only underlying ideology."
This one is so ridiculous, it isn't even funny! No Virginia, Communism _isn't_ atheism by definition.
o Communism is an economic philosophy (albeit a bad one) dealing mainly with common ownership of property, period.
o Atheism is a non-belief in god(s) or spirit beings, period.
Economic philosophies do not deal with the existance or non-existance of gods, and vica-versa. Whatever and however atheism was used by Communist leaders for their own purposes was incidental at _best_. Ie., you didn't need to be an atheist to be a Communist. (See my point above)
And now, for the coup-de-grace (parts in bold mine): 4) "In conclusion, wether Darwin’s or Spencer’s version of evolutionary atheism, both versions over history have shown a propensity to remove ethical and moral codes in relation to society False. This has been true in economics, politics, scientific research, social program awareness and more (False). (This is also true of Communistic brand of evolutionary atheism, wether Darwinian or not. (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) (False. See above) In fact, modern day Darwinian evolutionists have been so concerned about it, that people like Richard Dawkins have felt compelled to make lame arguments explaining how ethical considerations are available through evolutionary fairy tales. (False) No one can make a rational argument that a body of flesh which Darwinians at times explain as a machine, can have automatically ethical and moral components built into their “machine”. (False. ethics and morals are things that are taught) THE UPSHOT OF THE MATTER IS THAT ALL FORMS OF EVOLUTIONARY ATHEISM WORK LIKE A VACUUM; WITH NO SAFETY NET OR FAIL SAFE FEATURES THAT HAVE MORAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS. (And False again) This is why modern day Darwinism is so dangerous."
There is so much presumed and assumed bulls**t here (Yes, I'm insulting the idea, BECAUSE it is so), that it is comical on its face, and I've pointed out where. A more realistic understanding of what evolution is all about (and how it doesn't deal with ethics/morals, or the lack thereof), and a genuine knowing of (and even face-to-face get togethers with) atheists bring to light how barbarically ridiculous this ((cough)) 'paper' is. Perhaps the _only_ school where this would NOT get an 'F' grade, or be thrown out of class, would be a staunchly conservative religious school. I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't hope to get that published by any reputable university. You might know something about economics, and that part about Spencer was the most intelligent sounding part of the paper. But after that, it was all downhill from there. And all based upon a rendering that shows no historical proof as to why its claim about the (supposed) atheism/evolution relationship is made, but one that stays doggedly loyal to the author's belief system. ... And that's as far as it goes.
You say that Darwinism is so DANGEROUS. Yeah, well, Darwinism has been taught, spoken, believed, accepted, and shown on TV, ..... and I have *yet* to see any of the so-called DANGEROUS results come to pass as a direct result of this, the moral parts included. And before you jump in and point out all the morally questionable things that have been happening in our society as your proof, allow me to point out that a lot of those morally questionable things have been done by many of the same religious (and anti-Darwinist) people you say are so moral, ... from Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggart, all the way on down.
... Now, wouldn't that count as a false prophecy? :unsure:
The main reason I wrote that is too show you there is lots of stuff out there, people like Spencer that add to the PROOF. I do not need to hide behind Ann Coulter's skirt, wear Behe's shoes, or put on Wiekerts overcoat to fight Darwin. The best way for me to fight Darwin is with Darwin, or to fight Dawkins is with Dawkins. They have some shoddy card tricks they are playing. After this, lets move on to that.
Garth: u said: ... which further spouts the discredited conservative party line that atheists lack moral values. Discredited I say? Yup, as there have been a good number of atheists throughout history who have embraced and championed for the same labor laws, anti-trust legislation and social programs that have been combined with capitalism, much of which a good number of conservative Christian politicians have been *against* over the many years. Ie., it just shows that there were and are a mixture of religious/atheist activists in those areas, and where no one group can make exclusive moral claim to any of them.
Point 1)That's because we have a democracy. Democracy in itself cannot succeed if 51 or more percent of the people want a self destructive behavior. ie(A misbehaving minority would not get many new laws in effect.)Point 2) Some of which you refer to in how politicians vote is also skewed because many politicians vote the party line and to get re-elected, so it does not always reflect there core beliefs. Point 3) It certainly seems, from my vantage point, that political or celebrity athiests do NOT say much about there faith in the psuedoscience. They are in fact cowards to admit it. This is why the left of the left does not have a core of political movers on the face of things. Thus your argument really falls apart.
usaid: Oh by the way, interesting that you make claim of Smith, a 'deist', for the religious side. Many conservative Christians, both back then and now, would say that deists are "atheists who go to church".
Well, a diest has howbeit some small core values. Still, I said Adam Smith and Company. Smith's only contribution to American Capitilism was the ideology any way, and its noteworthy to mention his deist belief's made him feel morally compelled, where Darwin and Spencer had nothing to add to the mixture of ethical and moral values. More over the application of Smith's ideology, was greatly influenced by Christian values which in a historical context is more important. BTW, going to church, of itself is an oversold concept, practicing ones beleifs is a little more important. I mean Clinton "goes to church sometimes too." So pleaaaasssseseeee Besides that, capitalism without any government supervision could in fact get quite nasty. Leave it to a "diest" to trumpet the dynamics is about right. In addition, economics is loosely considered a science but still is found in business administration side of campuses where they do teach '"ethics" . If not for the good people of "faith" there term economics could had a rather besmerged name. This was the point. Most sceintists study there field and try to keep there religious values off the field. One can hardly do this however, when the science effects people. ie( As Darwin does) Some sciences do some don't. Studying the law of gravity hardly impacts wether people will eat or not, At least not today. I mean, why can't the people of biology stick to where they belong, like helping increase agricultural crop yields. Instead of turning biology into a circus for how the body innately has ethics in its genes and it gets "taught"
usaid: This one is so ridiculous, it isn't even funny Communism is an economic philosophy (albeit a bad one) dealing mainly with common ownership of property, period.
o Atheism is a non-belief in god(s) or spirit beings, period.
I speak mainly by what is in practice over the last 100 years. Perhaps you should tell Richard Wurmbrand, Romanian Lutheran who spent the better part of his life in prision how it is that Communism supports people of religious belief. Perhaps also some Chinese people living in this courntry or why it is that Bibles still to this day are not acceptable printed material in China. Is there a Marxist island where churches abound so that you can prove the point in PRACTICE?
usaid: Economic philosophies do not deal with the existance or non-existance of gods, and vica-versa. Whatever and however atheism was used by Communist leaders for their own purposes was incidental at _best_. Ie., you didn't need to be an atheist to be a Communist.
Perhaps you can recite to me in specific ;all the bible carrying faith believing Communists that were members of the Communist party? Since i know of none , sort of sounds like a by definition characteristic to me of what a good ole card carrying communist member is.
usaid: False. ethics and morals are things that are taught
Jeffery Dahlmer was taught values too. It's just his carnivourous side seemed to take over when he thought of evolution. (See msnbc Dahlmer interview)
Could it be that if the Darwin Holy Grail is around it might be a good excuse for other's to leave those morals and ethics on the sideline when convenient? YESSSSSSSSSSS
False False False False ok I know your time is limited. And er, eh, Do you see why the Hitler thing is a statlemate so the other issues are important? And lets not forget the athiestic credo of trying to make the Master/ Servant relationship ridiculous but assuming over 2000 years ago they had empolyer-employee relationships that punched timecards/and had labor strikes for that's the only way thay can make a arguement that the OT is irrational. (I mean, where are those employees running around over 2,000 years ago with picket signs so that Darwinists can recesitate there arguments against the Bible, and blow life into Darwin's holy grail? er uh hack cough, upon closer observation all the Darwinists have is a hat with a missing rabbit)
After this lets talk a little Darwin and Richarrrrrdd Dah Dah Dah Dah Dawkinnnns, ( I just studder when i say that name)
Please bear in mind that half the Christian population throughout the Roman empire in the first 3 centuries of the Christian era did not make the
case for their faith on the basis of "the Creator" - to the contrary, they argued that Jesus introduced into the world a new higher God, which was
antithetical to the Creator and his creation.
The Marcionite work "Antithesis" drew attention to the dubious characteristics and deeds of the Old Testament Creator-god contrasted to the higher New Testament God of
love and light presented by Christ. In fact, 1 Corinthians 13, presenting the attributes of "love", exhibits a perfect example of this, if we read this in view of the personification
"God is Love". But the same cannot be said of the OT creator, who was quite "jealous", who behaved quite "unseemly", who was "easily provoked", etc.
I've little doubt that Christians in the early centuries were regarded akin to "athiests", which becomes all the more intriguing when observing a many athiests today practically employing half of Marcion's "Antithesis", through their citations of OT scriptures having to do with deficient characteristics of "the Creator".
But whereas athiests today employ those citations to make the case there is "NO God" - Christians used these same citations to prove there was a "Higher God".
But this higher God was not the creator of this world.
The main reason I wrote that is too show you there is lots of stuff out there, people like Spencer that add to the PROOF.
No, it just adds to the info that you BELIEVE in. Please note the distinction between BELIEF and PROOF.
Point 1)That's because we have a democracy. Democracy in itself cannot succeed if 51 or more percent of the people want a self destructive behavior. Point 2) Some of which you refer to in how politicians vote is also skewed because many politicians vote the party line and to get re-elected, so it does not always reflect there core beliefs. Point 3) It certainly seems, from my vantage point, that political or celebrity athiests do NOT say much about there faith in the psuedoscience. They are in fact cowards to admit it. This is why the left of the left does not have a core of political movers on the face of things. Thus your argument really falls apart.
Your point of "That's because we have a democracy." does have _some_ relevency to my point that you are referring to, but after that, it all goes downhill in not addressing my point re: atheists AND Christians having the morals to address the social issues of the day. ... I notice that this practice of yours keeps rearing its ugly head. :-\ I also notice your unabashed mixture of 'leftism' and atheists in your arguments as tho' they are the same. ... I got news for you. There are plenty of Libertarian atheists (a few here on this board even), and one thing you do NOT call them is 'leftist', especially in the economic context.
Well, a diest has howbeit some small core values. Still, I said Adam Smith and Company. Smith's only contribution to American Capitilism was the ideology any way, and its noteworthy to mention his deist belief's made him feel morally compelled, where Darwin and Spencer had nothing to add to the mixture of ethical and moral values.
You still are blindly stuck to this empty diatribe of equating atheism with lack of morals/ethics/values. What? Do you think that by repeating that old refrain, that you thus prove that point? Or you post what other believers say about it, and thus prove your point? ... You do no such thing except to play the parrot. ie., "Sqquuaawwkk! Atheists have no morals! Atheists have no morals! Sqquuaawwkk! Sky4it wants a cracker!" ... That's basically what your posts boil down to.
I speak mainly by what is in practice over the last 50 years. Perhaps you should tell Richard Wurmbrand, Romanian Lutheran who spent the better part of his life in prision how it is that Communism supports people of religious belief. Perhaps also some Chinese people living in this courntry or why it is that Bibles still to this day are not acceptable printed material in China. Is there a Marxist island where churches abound so that you can prove the point in PRACTICE?
And do you know why this is? Hint: the biggest part of this dictatorial practice is illustrated by the word beginning with the letter 'd' in this sentence. ... Give up? It's the word 'dictatorial'. Ie., as in dictatorship!
Red China. Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany. Mussolini's Germany. Idi Amin's (sp?) dictatorship. And the rest. ALL of them a mixture of Communist and non-Communist governments both totalitarian and authoritarian. And ALL of them involved in persecuting Christian believers on one level or another, particularly if said church posed a challenge to the authority of said dictatorship (read that again). Oh, and ALL of them allowed for churches to exist in their countries, under state control, INCLUDING Soviet Russia (ie., all Eastern Orthodox Churches you see there have been there throughout the existance of the Soviet Union, ALL of them). But again, they were under state control.
So, what is the main point here, particularly in relation to what we are talking about? Ie., that it wasn't atheism that was the persecuter perse of Christian believers, but power mad dictators. ... The same kind of power mad dictators that made laws throwing into jail/executing atheists because they didn't obey the doctrines and dictates of the church, and who have had the temerity to openly publish their atheist writings. Were the dictators that did this Communist? No. They were Christian, and there were at least as many atheists/heretics/pagans/other non-believers who died under their rule throughout the centuries, as people who died under Joseph Stalin's rule. ... YYEEESSSSSSS, it is true. :-\
Perhaps you can recite to me in specific ;all the bible carrying faith believing Communists that were members of the Communist party? Since i know of none , sort of sounds like a by definition characteristic to me of what a good ole card carrying communist member is.
I believe I already gave you an example of a Christian Socialist (a Socialist being but a milder version of a Communist, but they are essentially of the same philosophy). The author of the original Pledge of Allegience, Francis Bellamy. There were even those individuals who believed that Jesus himself was of the socialist/Marxist mindset, as they made the claim that because Jesus believed in giving to the poor, railing against the rich, etc.
Jeffery Dahlmer was taught values too. It's just his carnivourous side seemed to take over when he thought of evolution. (See msnbc Dahlmer interview)
Could it be that if the Darwin Holy Grail is around it might be a good excuse for other's to leave those morals and ethics on the sideline when convient? YESSSSSSSSSSS
Ohhh, I see. So it was because Dahmer was taught evolution that he has done those crimes that he did, right? Well, if so, then why aren't a lot more evolutionists of a cannabalist streak? ... See, Yet Again you judge the whole of evolution according to the misdeeds of certain individuals. And you still cannot see that?
On a more honest (sort of) point, you made (kind of) concession when you said "Do you see why the Hitler thing is a statlemate so the other issues are important?" So you are giving up on that evolution-Hitler link as ridiculous on its face at last?
After all this, all you still have is claims about evolution/atheism, but without validated substance.
For the life of me I can't see a connection between evolution beliefs and social ills. Many people are not believers in Bible Creationism, not even within the Christian religion. I can't fathom how not believeing the Bible creation story or some form of Bible creation/God creation makes someone prone to evil. That just seems too simplistic an explanation.
Most of the people I know well are 'evolutionists,' especially my wild life biologist brother. How that makes them scary people I can't figure.
usaid: No, it just adds to the info that you BELIEVE in. Please note the distinction between BELIEF and PROOF.
I already did state the proof in the Spencer capalistic evolutionary view. This was the purpose of explaining the life of Spencer. cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeessse The resources for the Spencer view were all independent, deal with it
usaid: mixture of 'leftism' and atheists in your arguments as tho' they are the same. ... I got news for you. There are plenty of Libertarian atheists (a few here on this board even), and one thing you do NOT call them is 'leftist', especially in the economic context.
I made three valid points on the other stuff, you like one, so I disagree.
With respect to the stuff in your above quote, I only called them "left' on this occasions, and you are correct they may prefer to think of themselves as something else, IT WILL NOT BE DONE AGAIN.
usaid: And do you know why this is? Hint: the biggest part of this dictatorial practice is illustrated by the word beginning with the letter 'd' in this sentence. ... Give up? It's the word 'dictatorial'. Ie., as in dictatorship!
Hey Garth, I know that there have been dictators in countries that weren't communist and were ruthless, I thought the topic was communism. BTW, I am a capitalist, and I am not versed on Karl Marx or the Darwin/Marx possible combo, which I said before. Thus, I would prefer to leave that debate for another time, as I am rusty on that.
usaid: Red China. Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany. Mussolini's Germany. Idi Amin's (sp?) dictatorship. And the rest. ALL of them a mixture of Communist and non-Communist governments both totalitarian and authoritarian.
I am however smart enough to know that Red China and Soviet Russia were not a "a mixture of Communist and non-Communist governments" as you preferred to indicate. I also know they are totalitarian, but wether Marx has any democratic principles it certainly did not seem so in countries where they assumed control. (Cuba , eastern europe etc) For the sake of argument, until I brush up on my history (or not) lets let that one go. BTW just because the USSR had the word Socialist in it did not make it a Socialist country. A better Socialist country might be one like Sweden to describe.
usaid: dictators. ... The same kind of power mad dictators that made laws throwing into jail/executing atheists because they didn't obey the doctrines and dictates of the church, and who have had the temerity to openly publish their atheist writings. Were the dictators that did this Communist? No
Garth: Like John Calvin to some extent, but I do not know if he persecuted atheists. :) Were there dictators who threw the infidel in the toilet? yes of course there were Garth and I cede you that point, but not without reason. I also understand that athiests are a little hysterical in thinking that this could happen here if you let what you call the right run things. I do think these fears are somewhat exaggerated. I think you and I discussed this somewhat on the Calvin thread. Remember when I told you that the Bible never gets a break for the Christian Crusades. Of course, dumping and killing people many times has nothing to do with religious/athiest battles either. Sometimes its just being the fo of the wrong person and they provide convenient excuses. I do think you know one thing tho, that murder is NOT a biblical principle, neither did I say it is an athiestic one. I just say, there is no hurtle there if one wants to be one. It is very similar to the agrument I have made about Calvin doctine being an immoral or impure one.
usaid: You still are blindly stuck to this empty diatribe of equating atheism with lack of morals/ethics/values. Sqquuaawwkk! Sky4it wants a cracker!" ... That's basically what your posts boil down to.
Yes I am stuck but no its not blind, I provide you with the proof in Darwin's Holy Grail itself later. Thanks for the offer on the cracker, I would rather go get a cheese burger tonight.
usaid: "Do you see why the Hitler thing is a statlemate so the other issues are important?" So you are giving up on that evolution-Hitler link as ridiculous on its face at last?
Garth, What I said is you can't look to Hitler's statements regarding evolution and Christianity because he has statements on both sides causing it to be a stalemate. I said you have to look at other sources because of this. So, NO, I am not giving up on the Nazi Germany , Haeckel -Krupp-Darwin dynamics because this STUFF HAPPENED AND IS THE TRUTH. In fact, the fact that Hitler mentioned it in his statements proves that politically he had to appease those who believed that way, as well as his comments were appeasing to church people.
usaid: See, Yet Again you judge the whole of evolution according to the misdeeds of certain individuals. And you still cannot see that?
Well obviously all atheists are NOT Jeffery Dalmer or our cities would look like Night of the Living Dead. My point is simply that bible beilieving spirit filled people are harmless and that Darwinism provided a delicious meal for some rather carnivous types. Cant you at least see that? People become what they eat, (well not in Dahlmers case) joke intended. If you eat a doctine that is morally codeless there isnt a lot of help there for moral growth. Thats is my point, cant you see that?
usaid: that Jesus himself was of the socialist/Marxist mindset, as they made the claim that because Jesus believed in giving to the poor, railing against the rich, etc.
Yes Garth, I know Jesus was not a capitalist, but he wasn't a Marxist either. Actually, his idea of governance was not of this world, and was based upon moral principals, the same ones I have said are missing in Calvin and Darwin ideals. This all brings up another fine point. I mean even Darwinists know who God is ie(the one of the old testament) and Jesus (the guy who died on the cross) Darwinists want to turn them into a Evolutionary machine if you will. So do Calvinists. You actually share something in common with Calvin? A sick thought eh?
With respect to Evolution, the Long agrument is the short argument and the short arguement is the long argument. ( I said that about Calvin too) But the long argument is just way to humorous to not make about Darwin and Darwin's science. What is the short argument? Well for someone like Dawkins it is pretty simple, Dawkins got hit by a lighting bolt in his ASSumption at age 17.
A quote from the second link I gave (as I have serious doubts that some here expended much effort to read it)
that seems appropo:
"It seems that the only science the Discovery Institute is interested in is the same science the First Crusaders were interested in: evolution. Why? They provide an answer on their Science and Culture Web site:
Materialistic thinking dominated Western culture during the 20th century in large part because of the authority of science. The Center for Science and Culture seeks, therefore, to challenge materialism on specifically scientific grounds.
The Discovery Institute folks seem to believe that science has led to an onslaught of atheistic materialism, which in turn has led to massive immorality and a world of sinners and criminals that can be purified only by a return to some imagined prior state when people used the Bible as their guide to morality and science. The fact that there is no evidence that there has ever been such a prior state does not seem to concern them. Contrary to the Discovery Institute view, the evidence indicates that the vast majority of sinners and criminals are not atheistic materialists. Most people are theists and there is no evidence that a disproportionate number of atheists are committing the world’s sins and crimes. In fact, one of Christianity’s own, George Barna, fell from grace with many fundamentalists when he published the results of a poll that found that in terms of standards many Christians think distinguish them from evildoers, there is no difference between themselves and non-religious people. There is no difference in the divorce rate, in the belief in absolute moral truth, in how they rank economic self-interest in relation to spiritual or moral values, or “living a comfortable lifestyle” in relation to having a close, personal relationship with God. Barna is a longtime Christian pollster who has authored over 30 books on the state of Christianity."
One thing I am not is an apologist for the Discovery Institute. Actually, I know little about them, good or bad. If Wiekart was a part of that, well there is one heck of a fine work. Thats all I know about them. Philosphy and science has had some good effects and some bad effects. Its the old exploration vs pollution argument and it wont be settled anytime soon.
usaid: Most people are theists and there is no evidence that a disproportionate number of atheists are committing the world’s sins and crimes.
The bible calls sexual immorality a crime. In fact ,Job called it a heinous crime. Job 31:11. So society and the bible differ in what a crime is and isnt.
What you said above may well be beyond the scope of our ability to know. Certainly even if someone tried to study it, it may be difficult to come to a good conclusion. I suspect that crimes are committed in equal proportion in men that are morally intemperate wether atheist or not. Perhaps, my light hearted twist of putting Dahlmer in the athiest camp, ie (he was) has got this thing off on the wrong foot.
usaid: In fact, one of Christianity’s own, George Barna, fell from grace with many fundamentalists when he published the results of a poll that found that in terms of standards many Christians think distinguish them from evildoers, there is no difference between themselves and non-religious people. There is no difference in the divorce rate, in the belief in absolute moral truth, in how they rank economic self-interest in relation to spiritual or moral values, or “living a comfortable lifestyle” in relation to having a close, personal relationship with God. Barna is a longtime Christian pollster who has authored over 30 books on the state of Christianity."
yes Geo, there certianly seems to be a lot of that going on everywhere, but I am not an Apologist for other peoples lives either. In fact, the Corinthian people seemed to have the same problem during the Apostle Paul's time, this did not however change the working of the dynamics. Thankfully, I am only accountable for my own actions.
later....................................... its burger time
Invisible Dan: thanks for the info, i will keep it in mind.
Garth: you said I need to prepare better, uh ok, I will have some stuff for you later this week, Thurs or so, my own goods
Geo hope to see you too.
Bramble: usaid: For the life of me I can't see a connection between evolution beliefs and social ills. Many people are not believers in Bible Creationism, not even within the Christian religion. I can't fathom how not believeing the Bible creation story or some form of Bible creation/God creation makes someone prone to evil. That just seems too simplistic an explanation.
Most of the people I know well are 'evolutionists,' especially my wild life biologist brother. How that makes them scary people I can't figure.
I think anything that is at the core of how soceity behaves is rooted in the belief structure. Thats true off all different things we charish, wether democracy, capitalism or whatever. As a Christian, I never even used to think about evolution. I thought growing up that evolution since it was mentioned in text books only lightly, was by and large just a passing phase like the hippie movement. Evolution has been making a rather profound comeback. Richard Wiekert's book is the one that actually made me study the stuff. In fact, the concepts behind evolution may be making unusual comebacks in genetic cloning experiments and other scientific things that might if we knew be startling. As far as how it impacts people, it doesnt do anything good for me to discuss that at length, so I will ratchet that down. The concept of evolution as a science is a little more interesting.
You know Geo I read your website post ups just now, a lot of it anyway. Second Crusade eh? I have yet to see Behe show up in military attire with a slogan lets get em. Give me a break geo.
BTW, sometime Friday I will have a nice little work up on Darwin for you and Garth. It aint Behe or Wiekert but I think you should enjoy. I would much enjoy your critique but in case your wondering I am not auditioning for Discovery Institute status. Like I said, the best way to fight Darwin is with Darwin and Dawkins is with Dawkins. Richard Dawdah dah dah kins, I just kind of studder when I say that name, there is such profound intelligence ooosing out of the pages? Well maybe we can cover that too.
QUOTE Sky4it: 'bible beilieving spirit filled people are harmless'
??? Were you in TWI?
Do you really believe that those who are not 'bible beilieving spirit filled people' are full of harm? How scary! The whole world is full of them, they are everywhere.
You seem to be quite comfortable with broad labels for people.
I personally think that in any group, be it athiests or evolutionisats or bible beilieving spirit filled people , some will be wonderful, some will be criminal, some will be kind, some will be jerks, some will be lazy, etc...you'll find humans with a variety of human personalities where ever you go.
I don't know about George, but you can count me out from any further 'debates' here, as 1) your arguments (and even your writing) are quite sporadic, and lack a good bit of cohesion, and I've finally had enough of that, and 2) you keep portraying arguments, sources, and the like that endeavor to portray evolution/atheists in a manner that just doesn't fit with reality. It just doesn't, no matter how many sources you quote. It's similar to the tactic a few people use in quoting all the sources that say that the holocaust supposedly didn't happen, and even showing how different 'scholars' can prove it, yet historical fact clearly shows that it did. Something like that, and it becomes futile arguing against such people.
Well, the same principle applies to your arguments that convey that evolution leads to Nazism, and that atheism is the basis for Communism. Ie., it just ain't so.
I would think evolution thinking would be the basis for capitalism. Competition, the weak are pushed aside and the strong survive to pass on corporate genes. . .
Yeah ok, I will keep the rhetoric off the commmie/Nazi thing and not do that stuff. You have to understand I read all of Wiekerts book and the historical stuff so it wont be brought up again. But since I have read both Darwin and Dawkins I have a couple of papers I wrote on the stuff, and it would be nice if I could have it critiqued so that coming from you guys on scale of 1 to 10 how much you see there.
AFTER THAT GARTH, START ANOTHER TOPIC, BECAUSE ITS NICE TO CHAT.
btw geo:
usaid: But you are entirely correct, evolutionists are a bunch of worthless nazis and commies, I'm quite sure...
stop it geo, that's way execessive dont you think? Actually, Garth is a real intelligent person, I have learned more than a few things from him. BTW, compliments from me are difficult. BTW Geo there is another book out which I havent read by an athiest, part of the topic is that religion is according to this guy the cause of all wars etc. The ax is ground both ways in recent debate. The whole Nazi thing gets me a little worked up because many people have painted swastikas on Miss Coulter. I think your right tho, it is rather counterproductive to principaled thought.
Bramble: I think that is overgeneralized how you portrayed what I said. Let me put it to you this way. I think that bible based spirit filled give a person the best chance to be fit to survive? Perhaps the topic makes it appear a little jilted and I dont want to write an entire page on it. I don't often get a chance to discuss the atheist/faith debate, but I have watched quit a few. Garth and Geo can give me some pointers. Basically, Bramble my thoughts against what you said run kind of like this: We have laws in society, which work to keep all individuals from engaging in bad behavior. This is why most people as a whole are compliant regardless of ideology. In this, America is greatly favored.
BTW, both Garth and Geo have considerable more CLASS, than the ones I have watched in other debates, so how is that not now a compliment? Does this mean that Garth and Geo are more civil and even tempered than Dawkins and the other guy? Yes IN FACT I THINK IT DOES. At least when Garth makes an argument for athiesm, it doesn't dismiss faith summarily like Dawkins does. When is Garth's first book coming out? BTW, both you guys challenged me to be more civil and make better arguments. That's a challenge I have to accept. It for me is called self impovement.
Geo and Garth at least give me a grade on my NEW joke on the bottom.
Furthmore, I do not suppose that Rush Limblaugh calling feminists feminazi's helps the environment of freindly discussion. Have feminists made a contribution to soceity? In fact they are the one group who has stated that pornography is a crime against women to which I agree. (I am sure that shedding bra's didn't changed the law of gravity in the 60's but everyone has to have a starting point) I also don't agree with Rush's health care views. But what about Rush himself? I mostly like him. He is kind of like a fact churning person with spin. I heard him a few months ago and he sounds really wore out. What about his pill popping? If I had to carry the garbage that guy has, I probably would have taken a few too. Kind of like wondering how divorce lawyers stay healthy.
Does this make me an apologist for Rush? I don't think so. Sort of like the sympathy I feel for Elizabeth for having to be married to John Edwards.
Actually Garth, I have a lot of respect for you, you knocked me down so quick on the athiest/communist stuff, I am still recovering. You were about as fast to do that stuff as Pamela Anderson would be to mount a rockstar drummer.
Joke: Q: What do you call the love child of a Democrat and Republican? A: Richard Dawkins or (if you prefer Charles Darwin)
(Does this mean Hillary is really a Republican in Cognito?)
You say that Darwinism is so DANGEROUS. Yeah, well, Darwinism has been taught, spoken, believed, accepted, and shown on TV, ..... and I have *yet* to see any of the so-called DANGEROUS results come to pass as a direct result of this, the moral parts included. And before you jump in and point out all the morally questionable things that have been happening in our society as your proof, allow me to point out that a lot of those morally questionable things have been done by many of the same religious (and anti-Darwinist) people you say are so moral, ... from Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggart, all the way on down.
... Now, wouldn't that count as a false prophecy? :unsure:
Enjoy! ;)
Isn't it common for a person to ignore the dangers of left-wing thought patterens and point out the few right-wing blunderers.
I was thinking about it today. I'm going to make a T-shirt. I was thinking on the front, it could say:
Dem's contradictions
On the back, it will list the contradictions;
Pro-abortion but anti-death penalty.
Pro-poor but anti-self-sufficient
Pro-education but anti-individual success
Pro-Freedom of speach but anti-public prayer
Pro-evelution but anti-Christ
I need to make it a little more humorous and tongue in cheek. Any ideas?
I figure if I make about a dozen of them and send them to a few select politicians, it just may catch on at the National Republican Convention.
Recommended Posts
GarthP2000
Speaking of BIZARRE. <_< ... So many points, so little time.
1) "The divergence of the two is so profound, that if you didn’t know they were both capitalists you in fact wouldn’t think they were."
That's one of the nice things about capitalism, and that it leaves room for both atheists and religious people. Altho' there were also Christian Communists/Socialists back during the late 19th/early 20th centuries as well (one famous Christian socialist was the author of the original Pledge of Allegiance, ... but I digress. ;) ) And apparently Spencer (him being an atheist, along with thousands and thousands of other atheists), didn't go the Communist route, which kinda undermines the atheism being the basis for Communism argument.
2) "If in fact it had not been for Adam Smith, and those who held moral values, the current economic capitalistic society of today, might not have been anything like we have now. Labor laws, anti-trust legislation and social programs combined with capitalism by the government ensured that Herbert Spencer’s brand of evolutionary atheism did not take root."
... which further spouts the discredited conservative party line that atheists lack moral values. Discredited I say? Yup, as there have been a good number of atheists throughout history who have embraced and championed for the same labor laws, anti-trust legislation and social programs that have been combined with capitalism, much of which a good number of conservative Christian politicians have been *against* over the many years. Ie., it just shows that there were and are a mixture of religious/atheist activists in those areas, and where no one group can make exclusive moral claim to any of them.
Oh by the way, interesting that you make claim of Smith, a 'deist', for the religious side. Many conservative Christians, both back then and now, would say that deists are "atheists who go to church". Many accusations have been made about deists (and many of their ideas re: Christianity) being atheists in one form or another. But now, when it suits your purposes, you don't mind accepting a deist into your 'moral, religious camp', ... until its safe to call them atheists again, I imagine. <_<
3) "Communism is atheism by definition. Since Charles Darwin’s theories are the only ones still touted today, it remains communism only underlying ideology."
This one is so ridiculous, it isn't even funny! No Virginia, Communism _isn't_ atheism by definition.
o Communism is an economic philosophy (albeit a bad one) dealing mainly with common ownership of property, period.
o Atheism is a non-belief in god(s) or spirit beings, period.
Economic philosophies do not deal with the existance or non-existance of gods, and vica-versa. Whatever and however atheism was used by Communist leaders for their own purposes was incidental at _best_. Ie., you didn't need to be an atheist to be a Communist. (See my point above)
And now, for the coup-de-grace (parts in bold mine): 4) "In conclusion, wether Darwin’s or Spencer’s version of evolutionary atheism, both versions over history have shown a propensity to remove ethical and moral codes in relation to society False. This has been true in economics, politics, scientific research, social program awareness and more (False). (This is also true of Communistic brand of evolutionary atheism, wether Darwinian or not. (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) (False. See above) In fact, modern day Darwinian evolutionists have been so concerned about it, that people like Richard Dawkins have felt compelled to make lame arguments explaining how ethical considerations are available through evolutionary fairy tales. (False) No one can make a rational argument that a body of flesh which Darwinians at times explain as a machine, can have automatically ethical and moral components built into their “machine”. (False. ethics and morals are things that are taught) THE UPSHOT OF THE MATTER IS THAT ALL FORMS OF EVOLUTIONARY ATHEISM WORK LIKE A VACUUM; WITH NO SAFETY NET OR FAIL SAFE FEATURES THAT HAVE MORAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS. (And False again) This is why modern day Darwinism is so dangerous."
There is so much presumed and assumed bulls**t here (Yes, I'm insulting the idea, BECAUSE it is so), that it is comical on its face, and I've pointed out where. A more realistic understanding of what evolution is all about (and how it doesn't deal with ethics/morals, or the lack thereof), and a genuine knowing of (and even face-to-face get togethers with) atheists bring to light how barbarically ridiculous this ((cough)) 'paper' is. Perhaps the _only_ school where this would NOT get an 'F' grade, or be thrown out of class, would be a staunchly conservative religious school. I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't hope to get that published by any reputable university. You might know something about economics, and that part about Spencer was the most intelligent sounding part of the paper. But after that, it was all downhill from there. And all based upon a rendering that shows no historical proof as to why its claim about the (supposed) atheism/evolution relationship is made, but one that stays doggedly loyal to the author's belief system. ... And that's as far as it goes.
You say that Darwinism is so DANGEROUS. Yeah, well, Darwinism has been taught, spoken, believed, accepted, and shown on TV, ..... and I have *yet* to see any of the so-called DANGEROUS results come to pass as a direct result of this, the moral parts included. And before you jump in and point out all the morally questionable things that have been happening in our society as your proof, allow me to point out that a lot of those morally questionable things have been done by many of the same religious (and anti-Darwinist) people you say are so moral, ... from Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggart, all the way on down.
... Now, wouldn't that count as a false prophecy? :unsure:
Enjoy! ;)
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Multi-purpose joke, usable for all races, groups, sub-groups, offshoots, splinters, cells, creeds, beliefs, you-name-it:
Q: What do you call 10 skydiving {enter group name here} , jumping out of a plane?
A: Skeet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Oh, and this one too:
http://www.skepdic.com/essays/secondcrusade.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth & Geo
socks (nice joke, but i try to make em myself)
G & G:
The main reason I wrote that is too show you there is lots of stuff out there, people like Spencer that add to the PROOF. I do not need to hide behind Ann Coulter's skirt, wear Behe's shoes, or put on Wiekerts overcoat to fight Darwin. The best way for me to fight Darwin is with Darwin, or to fight Dawkins is with Dawkins. They have some shoddy card tricks they are playing. After this, lets move on to that.
Garth: u said: ... which further spouts the discredited conservative party line that atheists lack moral values. Discredited I say? Yup, as there have been a good number of atheists throughout history who have embraced and championed for the same labor laws, anti-trust legislation and social programs that have been combined with capitalism, much of which a good number of conservative Christian politicians have been *against* over the many years. Ie., it just shows that there were and are a mixture of religious/atheist activists in those areas, and where no one group can make exclusive moral claim to any of them.
Point 1)That's because we have a democracy. Democracy in itself cannot succeed if 51 or more percent of the people want a self destructive behavior. ie(A misbehaving minority would not get many new laws in effect.)Point 2) Some of which you refer to in how politicians vote is also skewed because many politicians vote the party line and to get re-elected, so it does not always reflect there core beliefs. Point 3) It certainly seems, from my vantage point, that political or celebrity athiests do NOT say much about there faith in the psuedoscience. They are in fact cowards to admit it. This is why the left of the left does not have a core of political movers on the face of things. Thus your argument really falls apart.
usaid: Oh by the way, interesting that you make claim of Smith, a 'deist', for the religious side. Many conservative Christians, both back then and now, would say that deists are "atheists who go to church".
Well, a diest has howbeit some small core values. Still, I said Adam Smith and Company. Smith's only contribution to American Capitilism was the ideology any way, and its noteworthy to mention his deist belief's made him feel morally compelled, where Darwin and Spencer had nothing to add to the mixture of ethical and moral values. More over the application of Smith's ideology, was greatly influenced by Christian values which in a historical context is more important. BTW, going to church, of itself is an oversold concept, practicing ones beleifs is a little more important. I mean Clinton "goes to church sometimes too." So pleaaaasssseseeee Besides that, capitalism without any government supervision could in fact get quite nasty. Leave it to a "diest" to trumpet the dynamics is about right. In addition, economics is loosely considered a science but still is found in business administration side of campuses where they do teach '"ethics" . If not for the good people of "faith" there term economics could had a rather besmerged name. This was the point. Most sceintists study there field and try to keep there religious values off the field. One can hardly do this however, when the science effects people. ie( As Darwin does) Some sciences do some don't. Studying the law of gravity hardly impacts wether people will eat or not, At least not today. I mean, why can't the people of biology stick to where they belong, like helping increase agricultural crop yields. Instead of turning biology into a circus for how the body innately has ethics in its genes and it gets "taught"
usaid: This one is so ridiculous, it isn't even funny Communism is an economic philosophy (albeit a bad one) dealing mainly with common ownership of property, period.
o Atheism is a non-belief in god(s) or spirit beings, period.
I speak mainly by what is in practice over the last 100 years. Perhaps you should tell Richard Wurmbrand, Romanian Lutheran who spent the better part of his life in prision how it is that Communism supports people of religious belief. Perhaps also some Chinese people living in this courntry or why it is that Bibles still to this day are not acceptable printed material in China. Is there a Marxist island where churches abound so that you can prove the point in PRACTICE?
usaid: Economic philosophies do not deal with the existance or non-existance of gods, and vica-versa. Whatever and however atheism was used by Communist leaders for their own purposes was incidental at _best_. Ie., you didn't need to be an atheist to be a Communist.
Perhaps you can recite to me in specific ;all the bible carrying faith believing Communists that were members of the Communist party? Since i know of none , sort of sounds like a by definition characteristic to me of what a good ole card carrying communist member is.
usaid: False. ethics and morals are things that are taught
Jeffery Dahlmer was taught values too. It's just his carnivourous side seemed to take over when he thought of evolution. (See msnbc Dahlmer interview)
Could it be that if the Darwin Holy Grail is around it might be a good excuse for other's to leave those morals and ethics on the sideline when convenient? YESSSSSSSSSSS
False False False False ok I know your time is limited. And er, eh, Do you see why the Hitler thing is a statlemate so the other issues are important? And lets not forget the athiestic credo of trying to make the Master/ Servant relationship ridiculous but assuming over 2000 years ago they had empolyer-employee relationships that punched timecards/and had labor strikes for that's the only way thay can make a arguement that the OT is irrational. (I mean, where are those employees running around over 2,000 years ago with picket signs so that Darwinists can recesitate there arguments against the Bible, and blow life into Darwin's holy grail? er uh hack cough, upon closer observation all the Darwinists have is a hat with a missing rabbit)
After this lets talk a little Darwin and Richarrrrrdd Dah Dah Dah Dah Dawkinnnns, ( I just studder when i say that name)
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Please bear in mind that half the Christian population throughout the Roman empire in the first 3 centuries of the Christian era did not make the
case for their faith on the basis of "the Creator" - to the contrary, they argued that Jesus introduced into the world a new higher God, which was
antithetical to the Creator and his creation.
The Marcionite work "Antithesis" drew attention to the dubious characteristics and deeds of the Old Testament Creator-god contrasted to the higher New Testament God of
love and light presented by Christ. In fact, 1 Corinthians 13, presenting the attributes of "love", exhibits a perfect example of this, if we read this in view of the personification
"God is Love". But the same cannot be said of the OT creator, who was quite "jealous", who behaved quite "unseemly", who was "easily provoked", etc.
I've little doubt that Christians in the early centuries were regarded akin to "athiests", which becomes all the more intriguing when observing a many athiests today practically employing half of Marcion's "Antithesis", through their citations of OT scriptures having to do with deficient characteristics of "the Creator".
But whereas athiests today employ those citations to make the case there is "NO God" - Christians used these same citations to prove there was a "Higher God".
But this higher God was not the creator of this world.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sky4it,
You need to prepare better. A LOT better. <_<
No, it just adds to the info that you BELIEVE in. Please note the distinction between BELIEF and PROOF.Your point of "That's because we have a democracy." does have _some_ relevency to my point that you are referring to, but after that, it all goes downhill in not addressing my point re: atheists AND Christians having the morals to address the social issues of the day. ... I notice that this practice of yours keeps rearing its ugly head. :-\ I also notice your unabashed mixture of 'leftism' and atheists in your arguments as tho' they are the same. ... I got news for you. There are plenty of Libertarian atheists (a few here on this board even), and one thing you do NOT call them is 'leftist', especially in the economic context.
You still are blindly stuck to this empty diatribe of equating atheism with lack of morals/ethics/values. What? Do you think that by repeating that old refrain, that you thus prove that point? Or you post what other believers say about it, and thus prove your point? ... You do no such thing except to play the parrot. ie., "Sqquuaawwkk! Atheists have no morals! Atheists have no morals! Sqquuaawwkk! Sky4it wants a cracker!" ... That's basically what your posts boil down to.And do you know why this is? Hint: the biggest part of this dictatorial practice is illustrated by the word beginning with the letter 'd' in this sentence. ... Give up? It's the word 'dictatorial'. Ie., as in dictatorship!
Red China. Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany. Mussolini's Germany. Idi Amin's (sp?) dictatorship. And the rest. ALL of them a mixture of Communist and non-Communist governments both totalitarian and authoritarian. And ALL of them involved in persecuting Christian believers on one level or another, particularly if said church posed a challenge to the authority of said dictatorship (read that again). Oh, and ALL of them allowed for churches to exist in their countries, under state control, INCLUDING Soviet Russia (ie., all Eastern Orthodox Churches you see there have been there throughout the existance of the Soviet Union, ALL of them). But again, they were under state control.
So, what is the main point here, particularly in relation to what we are talking about? Ie., that it wasn't atheism that was the persecuter perse of Christian believers, but power mad dictators. ... The same kind of power mad dictators that made laws throwing into jail/executing atheists because they didn't obey the doctrines and dictates of the church, and who have had the temerity to openly publish their atheist writings. Were the dictators that did this Communist? No. They were Christian, and there were at least as many atheists/heretics/pagans/other non-believers who died under their rule throughout the centuries, as people who died under Joseph Stalin's rule. ... YYEEESSSSSSS, it is true. :-\
I believe I already gave you an example of a Christian Socialist (a Socialist being but a milder version of a Communist, but they are essentially of the same philosophy). The author of the original Pledge of Allegience, Francis Bellamy. There were even those individuals who believed that Jesus himself was of the socialist/Marxist mindset, as they made the claim that because Jesus believed in giving to the poor, railing against the rich, etc.Ohhh, I see. So it was because Dahmer was taught evolution that he has done those crimes that he did, right? Well, if so, then why aren't a lot more evolutionists of a cannabalist streak? ... See, Yet Again you judge the whole of evolution according to the misdeeds of certain individuals. And you still cannot see that?
On a more honest (sort of) point, you made (kind of) concession when you said "Do you see why the Hitler thing is a statlemate so the other issues are important?" So you are giving up on that evolution-Hitler link as ridiculous on its face at last?
After all this, all you still have is claims about evolution/atheism, but without validated substance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
For the life of me I can't see a connection between evolution beliefs and social ills. Many people are not believers in Bible Creationism, not even within the Christian religion. I can't fathom how not believeing the Bible creation story or some form of Bible creation/God creation makes someone prone to evil. That just seems too simplistic an explanation.
Most of the people I know well are 'evolutionists,' especially my wild life biologist brother. How that makes them scary people I can't figure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... which is further real life evidence disproving the evolution-Nazism connection hypothesis.
;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth:
usaid: No, it just adds to the info that you BELIEVE in. Please note the distinction between BELIEF and PROOF.
I already did state the proof in the Spencer capalistic evolutionary view. This was the purpose of explaining the life of Spencer. cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeessse The resources for the Spencer view were all independent, deal with it
usaid: mixture of 'leftism' and atheists in your arguments as tho' they are the same. ... I got news for you. There are plenty of Libertarian atheists (a few here on this board even), and one thing you do NOT call them is 'leftist', especially in the economic context.
I made three valid points on the other stuff, you like one, so I disagree.
With respect to the stuff in your above quote, I only called them "left' on this occasions, and you are correct they may prefer to think of themselves as something else, IT WILL NOT BE DONE AGAIN.
usaid: And do you know why this is? Hint: the biggest part of this dictatorial practice is illustrated by the word beginning with the letter 'd' in this sentence. ... Give up? It's the word 'dictatorial'. Ie., as in dictatorship!
Hey Garth, I know that there have been dictators in countries that weren't communist and were ruthless, I thought the topic was communism. BTW, I am a capitalist, and I am not versed on Karl Marx or the Darwin/Marx possible combo, which I said before. Thus, I would prefer to leave that debate for another time, as I am rusty on that.
usaid: Red China. Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany. Mussolini's Germany. Idi Amin's (sp?) dictatorship. And the rest. ALL of them a mixture of Communist and non-Communist governments both totalitarian and authoritarian.
I am however smart enough to know that Red China and Soviet Russia were not a "a mixture of Communist and non-Communist governments" as you preferred to indicate. I also know they are totalitarian, but wether Marx has any democratic principles it certainly did not seem so in countries where they assumed control. (Cuba , eastern europe etc) For the sake of argument, until I brush up on my history (or not) lets let that one go. BTW just because the USSR had the word Socialist in it did not make it a Socialist country. A better Socialist country might be one like Sweden to describe.
usaid: dictators. ... The same kind of power mad dictators that made laws throwing into jail/executing atheists because they didn't obey the doctrines and dictates of the church, and who have had the temerity to openly publish their atheist writings. Were the dictators that did this Communist? No
Garth: Like John Calvin to some extent, but I do not know if he persecuted atheists. :) Were there dictators who threw the infidel in the toilet? yes of course there were Garth and I cede you that point, but not without reason. I also understand that athiests are a little hysterical in thinking that this could happen here if you let what you call the right run things. I do think these fears are somewhat exaggerated. I think you and I discussed this somewhat on the Calvin thread. Remember when I told you that the Bible never gets a break for the Christian Crusades. Of course, dumping and killing people many times has nothing to do with religious/athiest battles either. Sometimes its just being the fo of the wrong person and they provide convenient excuses. I do think you know one thing tho, that murder is NOT a biblical principle, neither did I say it is an athiestic one. I just say, there is no hurtle there if one wants to be one. It is very similar to the agrument I have made about Calvin doctine being an immoral or impure one.
usaid: You still are blindly stuck to this empty diatribe of equating atheism with lack of morals/ethics/values. Sqquuaawwkk! Sky4it wants a cracker!" ... That's basically what your posts boil down to.
Yes I am stuck but no its not blind, I provide you with the proof in Darwin's Holy Grail itself later. Thanks for the offer on the cracker, I would rather go get a cheese burger tonight.
usaid: "Do you see why the Hitler thing is a statlemate so the other issues are important?" So you are giving up on that evolution-Hitler link as ridiculous on its face at last?
Garth, What I said is you can't look to Hitler's statements regarding evolution and Christianity because he has statements on both sides causing it to be a stalemate. I said you have to look at other sources because of this. So, NO, I am not giving up on the Nazi Germany , Haeckel -Krupp-Darwin dynamics because this STUFF HAPPENED AND IS THE TRUTH. In fact, the fact that Hitler mentioned it in his statements proves that politically he had to appease those who believed that way, as well as his comments were appeasing to church people.
usaid: See, Yet Again you judge the whole of evolution according to the misdeeds of certain individuals. And you still cannot see that?
Well obviously all atheists are NOT Jeffery Dalmer or our cities would look like Night of the Living Dead. My point is simply that bible beilieving spirit filled people are harmless and that Darwinism provided a delicious meal for some rather carnivous types. Cant you at least see that? People become what they eat, (well not in Dahlmers case) joke intended. If you eat a doctine that is morally codeless there isnt a lot of help there for moral growth. Thats is my point, cant you see that?
usaid: that Jesus himself was of the socialist/Marxist mindset, as they made the claim that because Jesus believed in giving to the poor, railing against the rich, etc.
Yes Garth, I know Jesus was not a capitalist, but he wasn't a Marxist either. Actually, his idea of governance was not of this world, and was based upon moral principals, the same ones I have said are missing in Calvin and Darwin ideals. This all brings up another fine point. I mean even Darwinists know who God is ie(the one of the old testament) and Jesus (the guy who died on the cross) Darwinists want to turn them into a Evolutionary machine if you will. So do Calvinists. You actually share something in common with Calvin? A sick thought eh?
With respect to Evolution, the Long agrument is the short argument and the short arguement is the long argument. ( I said that about Calvin too) But the long argument is just way to humorous to not make about Darwin and Darwin's science. What is the short argument? Well for someone like Dawkins it is pretty simple, Dawkins got hit by a lighting bolt in his ASSumption at age 17.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
A quote from the second link I gave (as I have serious doubts that some here expended much effort to read it)
that seems appropo:
"It seems that the only science the Discovery Institute is interested in is the same science the First Crusaders were interested in: evolution. Why? They provide an answer on their Science and Culture Web site:
Materialistic thinking dominated Western culture during the 20th century in large part because of the authority of science. The Center for Science and Culture seeks, therefore, to challenge materialism on specifically scientific grounds.
The Discovery Institute folks seem to believe that science has led to an onslaught of atheistic materialism, which in turn has led to massive immorality and a world of sinners and criminals that can be purified only by a return to some imagined prior state when people used the Bible as their guide to morality and science. The fact that there is no evidence that there has ever been such a prior state does not seem to concern them. Contrary to the Discovery Institute view, the evidence indicates that the vast majority of sinners and criminals are not atheistic materialists. Most people are theists and there is no evidence that a disproportionate number of atheists are committing the world’s sins and crimes. In fact, one of Christianity’s own, George Barna, fell from grace with many fundamentalists when he published the results of a poll that found that in terms of standards many Christians think distinguish them from evildoers, there is no difference between themselves and non-religious people. There is no difference in the divorce rate, in the belief in absolute moral truth, in how they rank economic self-interest in relation to spiritual or moral values, or “living a comfortable lifestyle” in relation to having a close, personal relationship with God. Barna is a longtime Christian pollster who has authored over 30 books on the state of Christianity."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth see above
GeoAR:
One thing I am not is an apologist for the Discovery Institute. Actually, I know little about them, good or bad. If Wiekart was a part of that, well there is one heck of a fine work. Thats all I know about them. Philosphy and science has had some good effects and some bad effects. Its the old exploration vs pollution argument and it wont be settled anytime soon.
usaid: Most people are theists and there is no evidence that a disproportionate number of atheists are committing the world’s sins and crimes.
The bible calls sexual immorality a crime. In fact ,Job called it a heinous crime. Job 31:11. So society and the bible differ in what a crime is and isnt.
What you said above may well be beyond the scope of our ability to know. Certainly even if someone tried to study it, it may be difficult to come to a good conclusion. I suspect that crimes are committed in equal proportion in men that are morally intemperate wether atheist or not. Perhaps, my light hearted twist of putting Dahlmer in the athiest camp, ie (he was) has got this thing off on the wrong foot.
usaid: In fact, one of Christianity’s own, George Barna, fell from grace with many fundamentalists when he published the results of a poll that found that in terms of standards many Christians think distinguish them from evildoers, there is no difference between themselves and non-religious people. There is no difference in the divorce rate, in the belief in absolute moral truth, in how they rank economic self-interest in relation to spiritual or moral values, or “living a comfortable lifestyle” in relation to having a close, personal relationship with God. Barna is a longtime Christian pollster who has authored over 30 books on the state of Christianity."
yes Geo, there certianly seems to be a lot of that going on everywhere, but I am not an Apologist for other peoples lives either. In fact, the Corinthian people seemed to have the same problem during the Apostle Paul's time, this did not however change the working of the dynamics. Thankfully, I am only accountable for my own actions.
later....................................... its burger time
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Invisible Dan: thanks for the info, i will keep it in mind.
Garth: you said I need to prepare better, uh ok, I will have some stuff for you later this week, Thurs or so, my own goods
Geo hope to see you too.
Bramble: usaid: For the life of me I can't see a connection between evolution beliefs and social ills. Many people are not believers in Bible Creationism, not even within the Christian religion. I can't fathom how not believeing the Bible creation story or some form of Bible creation/God creation makes someone prone to evil. That just seems too simplistic an explanation.
Most of the people I know well are 'evolutionists,' especially my wild life biologist brother. How that makes them scary people I can't figure.
I think anything that is at the core of how soceity behaves is rooted in the belief structure. Thats true off all different things we charish, wether democracy, capitalism or whatever. As a Christian, I never even used to think about evolution. I thought growing up that evolution since it was mentioned in text books only lightly, was by and large just a passing phase like the hippie movement. Evolution has been making a rather profound comeback. Richard Wiekert's book is the one that actually made me study the stuff. In fact, the concepts behind evolution may be making unusual comebacks in genetic cloning experiments and other scientific things that might if we knew be startling. As far as how it impacts people, it doesnt do anything good for me to discuss that at length, so I will ratchet that down. The concept of evolution as a science is a little more interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
You know Geo I read your website post ups just now, a lot of it anyway. Second Crusade eh? I have yet to see Behe show up in military attire with a slogan lets get em. Give me a break geo.
BTW, sometime Friday I will have a nice little work up on Darwin for you and Garth. It aint Behe or Wiekert but I think you should enjoy. I would much enjoy your critique but in case your wondering I am not auditioning for Discovery Institute status. Like I said, the best way to fight Darwin is with Darwin and Dawkins is with Dawkins. Richard Dawdah dah dah kins, I just kind of studder when I say that name, there is such profound intelligence ooosing out of the pages? Well maybe we can cover that too.
Hope to hear from you guys.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
QUOTE Sky4it: 'bible beilieving spirit filled people are harmless'
??? Were you in TWI?
Do you really believe that those who are not 'bible beilieving spirit filled people' are full of harm? How scary! The whole world is full of them, they are everywhere.
You seem to be quite comfortable with broad labels for people.
I personally think that in any group, be it athiests or evolutionisats or bible beilieving spirit filled people , some will be wonderful, some will be criminal, some will be kind, some will be jerks, some will be lazy, etc...you'll find humans with a variety of human personalities where ever you go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sky4it,
I don't know about George, but you can count me out from any further 'debates' here, as 1) your arguments (and even your writing) are quite sporadic, and lack a good bit of cohesion, and I've finally had enough of that, and 2) you keep portraying arguments, sources, and the like that endeavor to portray evolution/atheists in a manner that just doesn't fit with reality. It just doesn't, no matter how many sources you quote. It's similar to the tactic a few people use in quoting all the sources that say that the holocaust supposedly didn't happen, and even showing how different 'scholars' can prove it, yet historical fact clearly shows that it did. Something like that, and it becomes futile arguing against such people.
Well, the same principle applies to your arguments that convey that evolution leads to Nazism, and that atheism is the basis for Communism. Ie., it just ain't so.
So with that, ... Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Yeah, Sky, ditto what Garth said for me.
And, my previous post was a quote. I think I identified it as such. Maybe I should have been more thorough in my attribution.
Anyway, for the context of the "crusade" thingy, just read the whole article I quoted from, or not.
But you are entirely correct, evolutionists are a bunch of worthless nazis and commies, I'm quite sure...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I would think evolution thinking would be the basis for capitalism. Competition, the weak are pushed aside and the strong survive to pass on corporate genes. . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
geo and garth:
Yeah ok, I will keep the rhetoric off the commmie/Nazi thing and not do that stuff. You have to understand I read all of Wiekerts book and the historical stuff so it wont be brought up again. But since I have read both Darwin and Dawkins I have a couple of papers I wrote on the stuff, and it would be nice if I could have it critiqued so that coming from you guys on scale of 1 to 10 how much you see there.
AFTER THAT GARTH, START ANOTHER TOPIC, BECAUSE ITS NICE TO CHAT.
btw geo:
usaid: But you are entirely correct, evolutionists are a bunch of worthless nazis and commies, I'm quite sure...
stop it geo, that's way execessive dont you think? Actually, Garth is a real intelligent person, I have learned more than a few things from him. BTW, compliments from me are difficult. BTW Geo there is another book out which I havent read by an athiest, part of the topic is that religion is according to this guy the cause of all wars etc. The ax is ground both ways in recent debate. The whole Nazi thing gets me a little worked up because many people have painted swastikas on Miss Coulter. I think your right tho, it is rather counterproductive to principaled thought.
Bramble: I think that is overgeneralized how you portrayed what I said. Let me put it to you this way. I think that bible based spirit filled give a person the best chance to be fit to survive? Perhaps the topic makes it appear a little jilted and I dont want to write an entire page on it. I don't often get a chance to discuss the atheist/faith debate, but I have watched quit a few. Garth and Geo can give me some pointers. Basically, Bramble my thoughts against what you said run kind of like this: We have laws in society, which work to keep all individuals from engaging in bad behavior. This is why most people as a whole are compliant regardless of ideology. In this, America is greatly favored.
BTW, both Garth and Geo have considerable more CLASS, than the ones I have watched in other debates, so how is that not now a compliment? Does this mean that Garth and Geo are more civil and even tempered than Dawkins and the other guy? Yes IN FACT I THINK IT DOES. At least when Garth makes an argument for athiesm, it doesn't dismiss faith summarily like Dawkins does. When is Garth's first book coming out? BTW, both you guys challenged me to be more civil and make better arguments. That's a challenge I have to accept. It for me is called self impovement.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
See above
Geo and Garth at least give me a grade on my NEW joke on the bottom.
Furthmore, I do not suppose that Rush Limblaugh calling feminists feminazi's helps the environment of freindly discussion. Have feminists made a contribution to soceity? In fact they are the one group who has stated that pornography is a crime against women to which I agree. (I am sure that shedding bra's didn't changed the law of gravity in the 60's but everyone has to have a starting point) I also don't agree with Rush's health care views. But what about Rush himself? I mostly like him. He is kind of like a fact churning person with spin. I heard him a few months ago and he sounds really wore out. What about his pill popping? If I had to carry the garbage that guy has, I probably would have taken a few too. Kind of like wondering how divorce lawyers stay healthy.
Does this make me an apologist for Rush? I don't think so. Sort of like the sympathy I feel for Elizabeth for having to be married to John Edwards.
Actually Garth, I have a lot of respect for you, you knocked me down so quick on the athiest/communist stuff, I am still recovering. You were about as fast to do that stuff as Pamela Anderson would be to mount a rockstar drummer.
Joke: Q: What do you call the love child of a Democrat and Republican? A: Richard Dawkins or (if you prefer Charles Darwin)
(Does this mean Hillary is really a Republican in Cognito?)
so on a A-F basis what does it get?
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Do NOT quit your day job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YID
Isn't it common for a person to ignore the dangers of left-wing thought patterens and point out the few right-wing blunderers.
I was thinking about it today. I'm going to make a T-shirt. I was thinking on the front, it could say:
Dem's contradictions
On the back, it will list the contradictions;
Pro-abortion but anti-death penalty.
Pro-poor but anti-self-sufficient
Pro-education but anti-individual success
Pro-Freedom of speach but anti-public prayer
Pro-evelution but anti-Christ
I need to make it a little more humorous and tongue in cheek. Any ideas?
I figure if I make about a dozen of them and send them to a few select politicians, it just may catch on at the National Republican Convention.
Edited by YIDLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Geez, this needs to go to Politics & tacks IMHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... like I said to Sky4it, don't quit your day job. ... and UNLIKE you, Sky4it showed more class. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.