| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2006 12:52:09 AM |
| Object: |
Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Dawkins Delusion
"I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins,
the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at
Oxford University and one of the world's leading skeptics concerning
Christianity and belief in God.
Dawkins is well known as an intellectual adversary to all forms of religious
belief--and of Christianity in particular. He is one of the world's most
prolific scientists, writing books for a popular audience and addressing
his strident worldview of evolutionary theory to an expanding audience. Put
simply, Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain" of Darwinian
evolution.
All this is what makes Dawkins' denial of a confrontational approach so
ludicrous. It is simply false at face value. This is a man who has taken
every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=09/26/2006
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 03:09:54 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:11:05 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1hmdhm1.1ny9mjlgi8vliN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the
theistic secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by
trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any religious
delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring
from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we
will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at
last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
What "their religion", button-pushing liar?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
27 Sep 2006 09:28:21 PM |
|
|
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the
theistic secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by
trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any religious
delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring
from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we
will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at
last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
society.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perplexed in Peoria" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
27 Sep 2006 09:42:23 PM |
|
|
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the
theistic secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by
trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any religious
delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring
from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we
will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at
last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US, when
a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the phrase
"God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perplexed in Peoria" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
27 Sep 2006 09:58:31 PM |
|
|
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:jEGSg.19278$IA.8117@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the
theistic secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by
trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any religious
delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring
from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we
will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at
last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US, when
a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the phrase
"God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
Well, I'll be damned. I am completely wrong.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/3478.html
And many Google hits explaining to fundamentalists how to tell a 'child of God'
from a 'child of Satan'.
I am amazed at my ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 03:03:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:58:31 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <rTGSg.19283$IA.6914@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:jEGSg.19278$IA.8117@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the
theistic secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by
trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any religious
delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring
from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we
will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at
last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US, when
a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the phrase
"God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
Well, I'll be damned. I am completely wrong.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/3478.html
And many Google hits explaining to fundamentalists how to tell a 'child of God'
from a 'child of Satan'.
I am amazed at my ignorance.
So, you are capable of learning, and thereafter admitting fault.
Colour me stunned.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
27 Sep 2006 10:22:03 PM |
|
|
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote..
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first
alienate the theistic secularists by trashing religious
faith; the agnostics, by trashing nuance; the humanists by
insisting that this is a purely negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any
religious delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we
let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every
state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when
all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and
Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands
and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last!
free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US, when
a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the phrase
"God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
Well, I'll be damned. I am completely wrong.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/3478.html
And many Google hits explaining to fundamentalists how to tell a 'child of
God' from a 'child of Satan'.
I am amazed at my ignorance.
I don't think you are entirely wrong in this case - King no doubt
thought that the phrase covered all people. I am just noting that he
explicitly failed to mention those without religion. It's the mindset,
not the man, I object to.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
|
|
|
| User: "rev.goetz" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 12:48:09 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote..
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first
alienate the theistic secularists by trashing religious
faith; the agnostics, by trashing nuance; the humanists by
insisting that this is a purely negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any
religious delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we
let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every
state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when
all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and
Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands
and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last!
free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US, when
a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the phrase
"God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
Well, I'll be damned. I am completely wrong.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/3478.html
And many Google hits explaining to fundamentalists how to tell a 'child of
God' from a 'child of Satan'.
I am amazed at my ignorance.
I don't think you are entirely wrong in this case - King no doubt
thought that the phrase covered all people. I am just noting that he
explicitly failed to mention those without religion. It's the mindset,
not the man, I object to.
Are you spinning the "I have a dream speech" into a case of
discrimination?
James
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rev.goetz" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 09:47:31 AM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote..
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first
alienate the theistic secularists by trashing religious
faith; the agnostics, by trashing nuance; the humanists by
insisting that this is a purely negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any
religious delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we
let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every
state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when
all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and
Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands
and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last!
free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US, when
a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the phrase
"God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
Well, I'll be damned. I am completely wrong.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/3478.html
And many Google hits explaining to fundamentalists how to tell a 'child of
God' from a 'child of Satan'.
I am amazed at my ignorance.
I don't think you are entirely wrong in this case - King no doubt
thought that the phrase covered all people. I am just noting that he
explicitly failed to mention those without religion. It's the mindset,
not the man, I object to.
Are you spinning the "I have a dream" speech into a case of
discrimination?
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 06:07:25 PM |
|
|
rev.goetz <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote..
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
....
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we
let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every
state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when
all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and
Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands
and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last!
free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along,
since it is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of
religion, there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil
rights, King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling
American delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing
in American society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US,
when a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses
the phrase "God's children", it means every human being on the
planet.
Well, I'll be damned. I am completely wrong.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/3478.html
And many Google hits explaining to fundamentalists how to tell a
'child of God' from a 'child of Satan'.
I am amazed at my ignorance.
I don't think you are entirely wrong in this case - King no doubt
thought that the phrase covered all people. I am just noting that he
explicitly failed to mention those without religion. It's the mindset,
not the man, I object to.
Are you spinning the "I have a dream" speech into a case of
discrimination?
Not really - just noting that everybody has their blind spot; and in
King's (and most theists' if you don't bring it to their attention)
those who have no religion are overlooked. And there's a deep reason for
that - without a religion a person is thought to be outside society by
those who do have religion.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Morse" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
04 Oct 2006 09:45:27 PM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1hmf504.estpkw1v3f02kN%:
rev.goetz <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote..
"John Wilkins" < > wrote...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" < > wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
...
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring,
when we let it ring from every village and every
hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be
able to speed up that day when all of God's children,
black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants
and Catholics, will be able to join hands
and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free
at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free
at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing
along, since it is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates
of religion, there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black
civil rights, King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to
the ruling American delusion - that anyone without a religion
lacks standing in American society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the
US, when a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist
minister) uses the phrase "God's children", it means every
human being on the planet.
Well, I'll be damned. I am completely wrong.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/3478.html
And many Google hits explaining to fundamentalists how to tell a
'child of God' from a 'child of Satan'.
I am amazed at my ignorance.
I don't think you are entirely wrong in this case - King no doubt
thought that the phrase covered all people. I am just noting that
he explicitly failed to mention those without religion. It's the
mindset, not the man, I object to.
Are you spinning the "I have a dream" speech into a case of
discrimination?
Not really - just noting that everybody has their blind spot; and in
King's (and most theists' if you don't bring it to their attention)
those who have no religion are overlooked. And there's a deep reason
for that - without a religion a person is thought to be outside
society by those who do have religion.
Well, actually, no. I have long been an agnostic. My friends, some of
whom are religious, know I am an agnostic, and none of them think me
"outside society". Some of them think I am going to hell, and have on
occasion tried to save me, but then they think others who do have
religion but a different religion are also going to hell.
Furthermore I think King clearly meant "all mankind" by "all of God's
children." And if God exists, then you are one of her children whether or
not you believe.
Now I will concede that non-believers are at a serious disadvantage when
running for public office in the US - but then so are many others, such
as anyone who pointed out that ten times as many Americans die in highway
accidents every year as died in the WTC bombing, yet we have not launched
a War on Traffic Accidents.
Yours,
Bill Morse
.
|
|
|
| User: "macaddicted" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
05 Oct 2006 05:47:06 PM |
|
|
William Morse <wdmorse@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
Now I will concede that non-believers are at a serious disadvantage when
running for public office in the US - but then so are many others, such
as anyone who pointed out that ten times as many Americans die in highway
accidents every year as died in the WTC bombing, yet we have not launched
a War on Traffic Accidents.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Perhaps we can have a war on false dichotomies?
--
macaddicted
fides quaerens intellectum
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Morse" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
06 Oct 2006 10:27:10 PM |
|
|
(macaddicted) wrote in
news:1hmqq8a.c9x7lo1mvjq3wN%:
William Morse <wdmorse@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
Now I will concede that non-believers are at a serious disadvantage
when running for public office in the US - but then so are many
others, such as anyone who pointed out that ten times as many
Americans die in highway accidents every year as died in the WTC
bombing, yet we have not launched a War on Traffic Accidents.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Perhaps we can have a war on false dichotomies?
Works for me. We used to have a Department of War. Now we have a Department
of Defense. Should we have a Department of War on Euphemisms?
Yours,
Bill Morse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
07 Oct 2006 03:43:45 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 03:27:10 GMT, William Morse <wdmorse@twcny.rr.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9854EF527BCD1morsecode@130.81.64.196>
macaddicted@REMOVETHIScomcast.net (macaddicted) wrote in
news:1hmqq8a.c9x7lo1mvjq3wN%macaddicted@REMOVETHIScomcast.net:
William Morse <wdmorse@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
Now I will concede that non-believers are at a serious disadvantage
when running for public office in the US - but then so are many
others, such as anyone who pointed out that ten times as many
Americans die in highway accidents every year as died in the WTC
bombing, yet we have not launched a War on Traffic Accidents.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Perhaps we can have a war on false dichotomies?
Works for me. We used to have a Department of War. Now we have a Department
of Defense. Should we have a Department of War on Euphemisms?
But what would it be named?
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?F=E9achad=F3ir?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
07 Oct 2006 04:57:08 AM |
|
|
Scríobh Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com>:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 03:27:10 GMT, William Morse <wdmorse@twcny.rr.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9854EF527BCD1morsecode@130.81.64.196>
macaddicted@REMOVETHIScomcast.net (macaddicted) wrote in
news:1hmqq8a.c9x7lo1mvjq3wN%macaddicted@REMOVETHIScomcast.net:
William Morse <wdmorse@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
Now I will concede that non-believers are at a serious disadvantage
when running for public office in the US - but then so are many
others, such as anyone who pointed out that ten times as many
Americans die in highway accidents every year as died in the WTC
bombing, yet we have not launched a War on Traffic Accidents.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Perhaps we can have a war on false dichotomies?
Works for me. We used to have a Department of War. Now we have a Department
of Defense. Should we have a Department of War on Euphemisms?
But what would it be named?
Homeland Security.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Windy" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
05 Oct 2006 06:05:06 PM |
|
|
William Morse wrote:
Furthermore I think King clearly meant "all mankind" by "all of God's
children." And if God exists, then you are one of her children whether or
not you believe.
Then what was all that fuss about (a certain) God's "only son"? It's
very irresponsible of parents to play favorites.
-- w.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Morse" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
06 Oct 2006 10:43:55 PM |
|
|
"Windy" <pikaia@spray.se> wrote in
news:1160089506.246454.14940@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
William Morse wrote:
Furthermore I think King clearly meant "all mankind" by "all of God's
children." And if God exists, then you are one of her children
whether or not you believe.
Then what was all that fuss about (a certain) God's "only son"? It's
very irresponsible of parents to play favorites.
True, but when you have millions of daughters, but no sons, (the only
logical conclusion from the "only son" condition), you can understand why a
mother might play favorites :-)
Yours,
Bill Morse
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 12:35:06 PM |
|
|
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:jEGSg.19278$IA.8117@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the
theistic secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by
trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any religious
delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring
from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we
will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at
last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US, when
a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the phrase
"God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
Well, I'll be damned. I am completely wrong.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/3478.html
And many Google hits explaining to fundamentalists how to tell a 'child of God'
from a 'child of Satan'.
I am amazed at my ignorance.
If the god in question is the fertility war got Yahweh, then I hope I'm
a divine ***** of the latter---- Satan being the lesser evil.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
27 Sep 2006 10:18:12 PM |
|
|
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first
alienate the theistic secularists by trashing religious faith;
the agnostics, by trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting
that this is a purely negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any
religious delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let
it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and
every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's
children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants
and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of
the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God
Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US, when
a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the phrase
"God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
I know that's what they *say* it means, yes.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 11:10:56 AM |
|
|
In article <1hmdl11.ywzl6w1cf51k8N%>,
(John Wilkins) wrote:
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" < > wrote...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" < > wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first
alienate the theistic secularists by trashing religious faith;
the agnostics, by trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting
that this is a purely negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any
religious delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let
it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and
every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's
children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants
and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of
the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God
Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US, when
a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the phrase
"God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
I know that's what they *say* it means, yes.
What about us children of the Goddess(es)? It is well known that
beautiful women are more powerful than angels, because while angels can
make our hair stand up, women can make our _flesh_ stand up. (OK, that
conceit is over Donne.)
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
29 Sep 2006 04:37:28 AM |
|
|
Walter Bushell wrote:
In article <1hmdl11.ywzl6w1cf51k8N%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au>,
j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first
alienate the theistic secularists by trashing religious faith;
the agnostics, by trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting
that this is a purely negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any
religious delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let
it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and
every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's
children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants
and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of
the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God
Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US, when
a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the phrase
"God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
I know that's what they *say* it means, yes.
What about us children of the Goddess(es)? It is well known that
beautiful women are more powerful than angels, because while angels can
make our hair stand up, women can make our _flesh_ stand up.
....which perhaps explains why ageing men are less inclined to
religion...
(OK, that
conceit is over Donne.)
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 12:28:42 PM |
|
|
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the
theistic secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by
trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any religious
delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring
from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we
will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at
last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US, when
a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the phrase
"God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
My parents were nothing like gods. I am not obliged to accept a
preacher's redeffinition of words.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 01:30:07 PM |
|
|
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159464522.870966.62280@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first
alienate the theistic secularists by trashing religious
faith; the agnostics, by trashing nuance; the humanists
by insisting that this is a purely negative movement; and
the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any
religious delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when
we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from
every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that
day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews
and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro
spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty,
we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along,
since it is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of
religion, there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil
rights, King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling
American delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing
in American society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US,
when a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the
phrase "God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
My parents were nothing like gods. I am not obliged to accept a
preacher's redeffinition of words.
No one's asking you to accept a preacher's redefinition of words any more
than you're asking us to accept your respelling of 'redefinition.' You
are obliged, however, to seek a reasonable understanding of what the
preacher means by his words.
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 07:05:40 PM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159464522.870966.62280@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first
alienate the theistic secularists by trashing religious
faith; the agnostics, by trashing nuance; the humanists
by insisting that this is a purely negative movement; and
the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any
religious delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when
we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from
every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that
day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews
and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro
spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty,
we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along,
since it is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of
religion, there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil
rights, King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling
American delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing
in American society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US,
when a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the
phrase "God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
My parents were nothing like gods. I am not obliged to accept a
preacher's redeffinition of words.
No one's asking you to accept a preacher's redefinition of words any more
than you're asking us to accept your respelling of 'redefinition.' You
are obliged, however, to seek a reasonable understanding of what the
preacher means by his words.
Why? Nearly 100% of the words out of preachers have zero connection to
reality. Why in the world should I care to "understand" the words of
insane people and/or fools?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 08:38:08 PM |
|
|
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159488340.601252.46420@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Deadrat wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159464522.870966.62280@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't
first alienate the theistic secularists by trashing
religious faith; the agnostics, by trashing nuance;
the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of
any religious delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring,
when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet,
from every state and every city, we will be able to speed
up that day when all of God's children, black men and
white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics,
will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the
old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank
God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along,
since it is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of
religion, there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil
rights, King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the
ruling American delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks
standing in American society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US,
when a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses
the phrase "God's children", it means every human being on the
planet.
My parents were nothing like gods. I am not obliged to accept a
preacher's redeffinition of words.
No one's asking you to accept a preacher's redefinition of words any
more than you're asking us to accept your respelling of
'redefinition.' You are obliged, however, to seek a reasonable
understanding of what the preacher means by his words.
Why? Nearly 100% of the words out of preachers have zero connection to
reality. Why in the world should I care to "understand" the words of
insane people and/or fools?
Wow! Nearly 100%! How large was your sample, and what's your margin of
error?
No one is asking you to "understand" (or even understand) the words of
the insane or of fools. In this case, you were asked to understand the
words of Martin Luther King, who was neither. That you immediately
refuse to consider the words of a preacher because he's a preacher says
more about you than about preachers, dontchathink?
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
29 Sep 2006 05:05:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:38:08 GMT, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159488340.601252.46420@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Deadrat wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159464522.870966.62280@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't
first alienate the theistic secularists by trashing
religious faith; the agnostics, by trashing nuance;
the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of
any religious delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring,
when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet,
from every state and every city, we will be able to speed
up that day when all of God's children, black men and
white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics,
will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the
old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank
God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along,
since it is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of
religion, there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil
rights, King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the
ruling American delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks
standing in American society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US,
when a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses
the phrase "God's children", it means every human being on the
planet.
My parents were nothing like gods. I am not obliged to accept a
preacher's redeffinition of words.
No one's asking you to accept a preacher's redefinition of words any
more than you're asking us to accept your respelling of
'redefinition.' You are obliged, however, to seek a reasonable
understanding of what the preacher means by his words.
Why? Nearly 100% of the words out of preachers have zero connection to
reality. Why in the world should I care to "understand" the words of
insane people and/or fools?
Wow! Nearly 100%! How large was your sample, and what's your margin of
error?
No one is asking you to "understand" (or even understand) the words of
the insane or of fools. In this case, you were asked to understand the
words of Martin Luther King, who was neither. That you immediately
refuse to consider the words of a preacher because he's a preacher says
more about you than about preachers, dontchathink?
That you invent things he didn't say, to use to attack him, says more
about you than about him, dontchathink?
King had a blind spot as do most theists especially preachers, when it
came to people outside religion.
You know perfectly well, nobody "refuses to consider the words of a
preacher because he's a preacher". They object to his god-talk in the
real world, or when it is used to exclude people (or worse). Please
try to be less dishonest next time.
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
29 Sep 2006 07:49:12 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:mmrph2939e4ckhijpa7m598jdojf9bsegc@4ax.com:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:38:08 GMT, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159488340.601252.46420@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Deadrat wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159464522.870966.62280@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in
Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't
first alienate the theistic secularists by trashing
religious faith; the agnostics, by trashing nuance;
the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of
any religious delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring,
when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet,
from every state and every city, we will be able to
speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and
Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the
words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at
last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing
along, since it is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of
religion, there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black
civil rights, King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to
the ruling American delusion - that anyone without a religion
lacks standing in American society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the
US, when a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister)
uses the phrase "God's children", it means every human being on
the planet.
My parents were nothing like gods. I am not obliged to accept a
preacher's redeffinition of words.
No one's asking you to accept a preacher's redefinition of words
any more than you're asking us to accept your respelling of
'redefinition.' You are obliged, however, to seek a reasonable
understanding of what the preacher means by his words.
Why? Nearly 100% of the words out of preachers have zero connection
to reality. Why in the world should I care to "understand" the words
of insane people and/or fools?
Wow! Nearly 100%! How large was your sample, and what's your margin of
error?
No one is asking you to "understand" (or even understand) the words of
the insane or of fools. In this case, you were asked to understand
the words of Martin Luther King, who was neither. That you
immediately refuse to consider the words of a preacher because he's a
preacher says more about you than about preachers, dontchathink?
That you invent things he didn't say, to use to attack him, says more
about you than about him, dontchathink?
What's unclear to you about "Nearly 100% of the words out of preachers
have zero connection to reality"? In case there was any doubt about the
OP's intent in that little gem, he followed it with "Why ... should I
care to 'understand' the words of insane people and/or fools?" And this
is somehow unclear to you?
King had a blind spot as do most theists especially preachers, when it
came to people outside religion.
Possibly. I'd be open to hearing some evidence. From what I know of
King's words and actions, this seems doubtful to me.
You know perfectly well, nobody "refuses to consider the words of a
preacher because he's a preacher".
And just how do you interpret the statement that dismisses a priori as
nonsense "nearly" all of a preacher's words? Does that dismissal seem
based on the words or on the fact that they're preacher's words?
They object to his god-talk in the
real world, or when it is used to exclude people (or worse).
The only "god-talk" under discussion was the phrase "God's children."
The claim is that from the speaker's point of view, this meant everyone,
i.e., it was inclusive not exclusive. I'm open to evidence that this
interpretation is wrong, but the simple fact that the speaker was a
preacher doesn't count in my book.
Please try to be less dishonest next time.
Please try to read for comprehension from now on.
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
29 Sep 2006 07:59:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:49:12 GMT, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:mmrph2939e4ckhijpa7m598jdojf9bsegc@4ax.com:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:38:08 GMT, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159488340.601252.46420@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Deadrat wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159464522.870966.62280@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in
Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't
first alienate the theistic secularists by trashing
religious faith; the agnostics, by trashing nuance;
the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of
any religious delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring,
when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet,
from every state and every city, we will be able to
speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and
Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the
words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at
last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing
along, since it is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of
religion, there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black
civil rights, King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to
the ruling American delusion - that anyone without a religion
lacks standing in American society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the
US, when a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister)
uses the phrase "God's children", it means every human being on
the planet.
My parents were nothing like gods. I am not obliged to accept a
preacher's redeffinition of words.
No one's asking you to accept a preacher's redefinition of words
any more than you're asking us to accept your respelling of
'redefinition.' You are obliged, however, to seek a reasonable
understanding of what the preacher means by his words.
Why? Nearly 100% of the words out of preachers have zero connection
to reality. Why in the world should I care to "understand" the words
of insane people and/or fools?
Wow! Nearly 100%! How large was your sample, and what's your margin of
error?
No one is asking you to "understand" (or even understand) the words of
the insane or of fools. In this case, you were asked to understand
the words of Martin Luther King, who was neither. That you
immediately refuse to consider the words of a preacher because he's a
preacher says more about you than about preachers, dontchathink?
That you invent things he didn't say, to use to attack him, says more
about you than about him, dontchathink?
What's unclear to you about "Nearly 100% of the words out of preachers
have zero connection to reality"? In case there was any doubt about the
OP's intent in that little gem, he followed it with "Why ... should I
care to 'understand' the words of insane people and/or fools?" And this
is somehow unclear to you?
So point out where any of this is "anything a preacher says because he
is a preacher". And then admit you were being dishonest when you
can't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
29 Sep 2006 02:59:02 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:b36qh256ib8c6h2k69do4602cljc9pgl5a@4ax.com:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:49:12 GMT, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:mmrph2939e4ckhijpa7m598jdojf9bsegc@4ax.com:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:38:08 GMT, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159488340.601252.46420@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Deadrat wrote:
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1159464522.870966.62280@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au...
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote...
VoiceOfReason <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in
Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't
first alienate the theistic secularists by trashing
religious faith; the agnostics, by trashing
nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a
purely negative movement; and the
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes
of any religious delusion?
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring,
when we let it ring from every village and every
hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be
able to speed up that day when all of God's children,
black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles,
Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands
and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual,
"Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we
are free at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing
along, since it is against their religion.
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates
of religion, there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black
civil rights, King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to
the ruling American delusion - that anyone without a
religion lacks standing in American society.
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the
US, when a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist
minister) uses the phrase "God's children", it means every
human being on the planet.
My parents were nothing like gods. I am not obliged to accept a
preacher's redeffinition of words.
No one's asking you to accept a preacher's redefinition of words
any more than you're asking us to accept your respelling of
'redefinition.' You are obliged, however, to seek a reasonable
understanding of what the preacher means by his words.
Why? Nearly 100% of the words out of preachers have zero
connection to reality. Why in the world should I care to
"understand" the words of insane people and/or fools?
Wow! Nearly 100%! How large was your sample, and what's your margin
of error?
No one is asking you to "understand" (or even understand) the words
of the insane or | | | | | | | | | | |
