| 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: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
27 Sep 2006 08:19:55 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:efd3i7$61j$1@news.datemas.de...
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.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
Dawkins stated that he does not thrive on confrontation.
He did not state that he avoids it.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke
and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of
Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King
impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold
hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the
first place." - Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
27 Sep 2006 02:15:05 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:efd3i7$61j$1@news.datemas.de...
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.
Correct.
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.
No it's not. Dawkins is not very good at confrontation. In his series Root
of All Evil, he demonstrates that he's rotten at confrontation. His
interviews with his adversaries suck. He is not good at confrontation, and
does not thrive on it.
But when he's not being confrontational, when he's just talking or writing
from his armchair, he's in his element. Then it's sheer poetry.
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.
But this is not confrontation. His opponents are not present. To have a
confrontation, you have to confront someone.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
25 Oct 2006 07:25:54 PM |
|
|
In article <Mp6dnUxbI_RruYfYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@io.com>, Denis
Loubet said...
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.
But this is not confrontation. His opponents are not present.
To have a confrontation, you have to confront someone.
For many fundamentalists, any discussion, inquiry, and
examination -- anything else besides blind adherence to doctrine
-- is *by definition* confrontational. The "confrontation" lies
in not accepting that Jesus saved us and lives an extremely
split existence in all our hearts.
Further, note the distortion of Dawkin's position. Dawkins does
not say, in anything of his that I've ever seen or read, that
*evolutionary theory* itself implies that religion is dangerous.
Rather, Dawkins arrived at his negative opinion of religion via
other means, based on other information.
But it is, no doubt, easy for people who perpetrate untold lies
about biological science to tell yet one more.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
27 Sep 2006 04:57:14 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 02:15:05 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Mp6dnUxbI_RruYfYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@io.com>
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:efd3i7$61j$1@news.datemas.de...
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.
Correct.
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.
No it's not. Dawkins is not very good at confrontation. In his series Root
of All Evil, he demonstrates that he's rotten at confrontation. His
interviews with his adversaries suck. He is not good at confrontation, and
does not thrive on it.
His "interview" with that Haggard lunatic exemplifies that.
Haggard is in his element, being arrogant bossy and confrontational,
whereas Dawkins obviously feels very awkward at having to correct him,
and only does so hesitantly when outright lied to.
But when he's not being confrontational, when he's just talking or writing
from his armchair, he's in his element. Then it's sheer poetry.
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.
But this is not confrontation. His opponents are not present. To have a
confrontation, you have to confront someone.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
27 Sep 2006 11:08:54 AM |
|
|
"I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins,
One can see by watching him in person and via video that the above
statement, by him, is 100% accurate. Professor Dawkins shows every
indication that "confrontation" is distasteful to him. His politeness
and "proper British breeding" (for lack of a better phrase) is observed
to take over even when he has been sorely abused by his intellectual,
moral, and ethical inferiors. He is far, far too polite even when he
has been victimized, slandered, libeled, and defamed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
27 Sep 2006 05:48:35 PM |
|
|
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159373334.007319.250090@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
"I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins,
One can see by watching him in person and via video that the above
statement, by him, is 100% accurate. Professor Dawkins shows every
indication that "confrontation" is distasteful to him. His politeness
and "proper British breeding" (for lack of a better phrase) is observed
to take over even when he has been sorely abused by his intellectual,
moral, and ethical inferiors. He is far, far too polite even when he
has been victimized, slandered, libeled, and defamed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
27 Sep 2006 05:49:38 PM |
|
|
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159373334.007319.250090@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
"I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins,
One can see by watching him in person and via video that the above
statement, by him, is 100% accurate. Professor Dawkins shows every
indication that "confrontation" is distasteful to him. His politeness
and "proper British breeding" (for lack of a better phrase) is observed
to take over even when he has been sorely abused by his intellectual,
moral, and ethical inferiors. He is far, far too polite even when he
has been victimized, slandered, libeled, and defamed.
In person, I find Dawkins to be a little timid.
In his writing, he really does earn the nickname "Darwin's Rotweiller"
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke
and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of
Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King
impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold
hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the
first place." - Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 01:04:47 PM |
|
|
From: Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain" of Darwinian
evolution.
That does't make sense to me. Dawkins doesn't believe there is any such
thing as "the devil", much less that he's working for the devil.
Who exactly said (originally) the words "devil's chaplain" in regard to
Dawkins' aspirations?
<http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=09/26/2006>
If Dawkins is so certain that theism is dead,
why would he devote so much of his time and energy to opposing it?
I don't see anywhere he claims it's dead, merely that it's stupid and
causes great harm, and he'd like it to eventually die out, and he hopes
the expenditure of his time and energy will speed its demise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perplexed in Peoria" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 01:56:34 PM |
|
|
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem642b@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message news:REM-2006sep28-001@Yahoo.Com...
From: Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain" of Darwinian
evolution.
That does't make sense to me. Dawkins doesn't believe there is any such
thing as "the devil", much less that he's working for the devil.
Who exactly said (originally) the words "devil's chaplain" in regard to
Dawkins' aspirations?
Are you playing dumb here Robert? Dawkins wrote a book entitled "A Devil's
Chaplain", in which he explicitly cast himself in the role. The phrase
itself is Darwin's, I believe. It is (and was) meant to mean a person
who explains why the evidences of the natural world don't point to Design.
Paley, in this metaphor, would be one of God's chaplains.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Canzi -- non-mailable" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
27 Sep 2006 06:46:56 PM |
|
|
In article <efd3i7$61j$1@news.datemas.de>,
Jason Spaceman <reply@usenet.com> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
[snip]
This is a man who has taken
every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
--
David Canzi "Do not let superstition inhibit your actions."
-- Jeane Dixon, horoscope for Virgo, May 17, 1990.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 01:43:14 AM |
|
|
In article <eff2hg$ln8$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
In article <efd3i7$61j$1@news.datemas.de>,
Jason Spaceman <reply@usenet.com> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
[snip]
This is a man who has taken
every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 12:37:18 PM |
|
|
Bobby Bryant wrote:
In article <eff2hg$ln8$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
In article <efd3i7$61j$1@news.datemas.de>,
Jason Spaceman <reply@usenet.com> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
[snip]
This is a man who has taken
every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
If Jesus ever existed, he was born an atheist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 03:06:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
- Refer: <6aKSg.5409$TV3.4389@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
In article <eff2hg$ln8$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
In article <efd3i7$61j$1@news.datemas.de>,
Jason Spaceman <reply@usenet.com> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
[snip]
This is a man who has taken
every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
If, indeed, he ever was born.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Canzi -- non-mailable" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 10:27:53 AM |
|
|
In article <mi0nh2pma8qjovkmdef6h7302ml4chl8j0@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
- Refer: <6aKSg.5409$TV3.4389@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
In article <eff2hg$ln8$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
{Dawkins] 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.
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
If, indeed, he ever was born.
....and if he ever was, where did his Y chromosome come from?
--
David Canzi "Do not let superstition inhibit your actions."
-- Jeane Dixon, horoscope for Virgo, May 17, 1990.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 05:03:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:27:53 +0000 (UTC),
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) wrote:
- Refer: <efgplp$6j6$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>
In article <mi0nh2pma8qjovkmdef6h7302ml4chl8j0@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
- Refer: <6aKSg.5409$TV3.4389@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
In article <eff2hg$ln8$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
{Dawkins] is a man who has taken
every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
If, indeed, he ever was born.
...and if he ever was, where did his Y chromosome come from?
Fertile imaginations...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
29 Sep 2006 07:09:18 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:27:53 +0000 (UTC),
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) wrote:
In article <mi0nh2pma8qjovkmdef6h7302ml4chl8j0@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
- Refer: <6aKSg.5409$TV3.4389@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
In article <eff2hg$ln8$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
{Dawkins] is a man who has taken
every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
If, indeed, he ever was born.
...and if he ever was, where did his Y chromosome come from?
The "H" in Jesus H. Christ is short for haploid.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 02:10:31 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
In article <eff2hg$ln8$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
In article <efd3i7$61j$1@news.datemas.de>,
Jason Spaceman <reply@usenet.com> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
[snip]
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.
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
Some of the translations are a bit odd because the Greeks were
polytheists yet it gets translated as "God", and also into some
archaic English.
From Cliff Walker's site at http://www.positiveatheism.com
Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not.
Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do?
-- Epicurus, quoted by Robert Green Ingersoll in "Why I Am an
Agnostic"
I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not
approve, and what they approve I do not know.
-- Epicurus, Fragments, no. 187, from The Columbia Dictionary of
Quotations
If the gods listened to the prayers of men, all humankind would
quickly perish since they constantly pray for many evils to befall one
another.
-- Epicurus, quoted from Eugene O'Connor, The Essential Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus, quoted from a personal letter from [name withheld] to
Cliff Walker, (July 9, 2001)
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not
want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but
cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is
in the world?
-- Epicurus (attributed: source unknown)
Grow accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us, since every
good and evil lie in sensation. However, death is the deprivation of
sensation. Therefore, correct understanding that death is nothing to
us makes a mortal life enjoyable, not by adding an endless span of
time but by taking away the longing for immortality. For there is
nothing dreadful in life for the man who has truly comprehended that
there is nothing terrible in not living. Therefore, foolish is the man
who says that he fears death, not because it will cause pain when it
arrives but because anticipation of it is painful. What is no trouble
when it arrives is an idle worry in anticipation. Death, therefore --
the most dreadful of evils -- is nothing to us, since while we exist,
death is not present, and whenever death is present, we do not exist.
It is nothing either to the living or the dead, since it does not
exist for the living, and the dead no longer are.
-- Epicurus (attributed: source unknown)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 04:57:15 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
In article <eff2hg$ln8$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
In article <efd3i7$61j$1@news.datemas.de>,
Jason Spaceman <reply@usenet.com> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
[snip]
This is a man who has taken
every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
I thought that, but it turns out that Epicureans thought that the gds
were dispassionate and unconcerned but very real.
But the Carvarkists in India were definitely atheists.
....
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 10:05:21 AM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
In article <eff2hg$ln8$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
In article <efd3i7$61j$1@news.datemas.de>,
Jason Spaceman <reply@usenet.com> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
[snip]
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.
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
I thought that, but it turns out that Epicureans thought that the gds
were dispassionate and unconcerned but very real.
But the Carvarkists in India were definitely atheists.
...
--
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."
Al wrote:
Are our observed truths generalized truths or specific truths? Are
"general" and "specific" and "broad" and "narrow" not terms that are
relative? What thoughts would we think if there was no imagined- visual
formative capacity in our neurological processes? Would words be
communicable if there were no symmetric, link formations being
associated with the words? Because there is a dependence on imagined
form, are the myriad forms and sequential matrices of thought each one
obtains from their own neuro pathways' interactions effectively
communicable to another entities generally similar system of thought
organization to the degree that these formations may be accurately
transposed from largely "energy interplay" to another system of
visually and audit-orally sensed "letter and number symbols" method
thoroughly depicting this fractionalized, dancing interplay? We seem to
think so. We are children of the universe in child's play. We are
proud. We know because we think we know. Our thoughts are our thoughts.
They may not be the thought or thoughts of another being with
substantially dissimilar interpretations of imaginary form. Tear off
the lens of the eye and the forms we have labeled so confidently cease
to be perceived. In our reality the stars were never there to discuss
or measure if there was no mechanism constructed to witness them.
If there is purpose for our discussions, if there is sensible humane
benefit potential present in them, then we must continue with what we
have. If there is no perceivable purpose then we might well discuss,
with our god-like skill, another venture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Canzi -- non-mailable" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 12:26:09 PM |
|
|
In article <1159455920.907102.225190@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Al <aavery6801@yahoo.com> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
In article <eff2hg$ln8$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
I thought that, but it turns out that Epicureans thought that the gds
were dispassionate and unconcerned but very real.
But the Carvarkists in India were definitely atheists.
Are our observed truths generalized truths or specific truths? Are
"general" and "specific" and "broad" and "narrow" not terms that are
relative? What thoughts would we think if there was no imagined- visual
formative capacity in our neurological processes? Would words be
communicable if there were no symmetric, link formations being
associated with the words? Because there is a dependence on imagined
form, are the myriad forms and sequential matrices of thought each one
obtains from their own neuro pathways' interactions effectively
communicable to another entities generally similar system of thought
organization to the degree that these formations may be accurately
transposed from largely "energy interplay" to another system of
visually and audit-orally sensed "letter and number symbols" method
thoroughly depicting this fractionalized, dancing interplay?
Uhhh... could you repeat the question?
--
David Canzi "Do not let superstition inhibit your actions."
-- Jeane Dixon, horoscope for Virgo, May 17, 1990.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 01:10:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:57:15 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
I thought that, but it turns out that Epicureans thought that the gds
were dispassionate and unconcerned but very real.
But the Carvarkists in India were definitely atheists.
Off to Wikipedia. . .
Off to Google. . .
Okay, I give. Who were the Carvarkists?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 06:58:34 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2006.09.28.18.09.25.331164@earthlink.net>,
Mark Isaak <eciton@earthlink.net> writes:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:57:15 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
I thought that, but it turns out that Epicureans thought that the gds
were dispassionate and unconcerned but very real.
But the Carvarkists in India were definitely atheists.
Off to Wikipedia. . .
Off to Google. . .
Okay, I give. Who were the Carvarkists?
With high probability, either:
a) People who carvark.
b) People who own or use carvarks.
c) People who follow or worship Carvark.
d) People who carve arks.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 07:25:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:58:34 GMT, Bobby Bryant wrote:
In article <pan.2006.09.28.18.09.25.331164@earthlink.net>,
Mark Isaak <eciton@earthlink.net> writes:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:57:15 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
I thought that, but it turns out that Epicureans thought that the gds
were dispassionate and unconcerned but very real.
But the Carvarkists in India were definitely atheists.
Off to Wikipedia. . .
Off to Google. . .
Okay, I give. Who were the Carvarkists?
With high probability, either:
a) People who carvark.
b) People who own or use carvarks.
c) People who follow or worship Carvark.
d) People who carve arks.
e) Semi-literate people associated with Car Parks
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 06:07:30 PM |
|
|
Mark Isaak <eciton@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:57:15 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
I thought that, but it turns out that Epicureans thought that the gds
were dispassionate and unconcerned but very real.
But the Carvarkists in India were definitely atheists.
Off to Wikipedia. . .
Off to Google. . .
Okay, I give. Who were the Carvarkists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvaka
--
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: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 06:58:50 PM |
|
|
In article <1hmf5a7.12hubqo1c6vr7wN%> (John Wilkins) writes:
hlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1159484909 88856 128.100.83.246 (28 Sep 2006 23:08:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:08:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: uqjwilk2.vpn.uq.edu.au
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8b1 (Mac OS X version 10.4.7 (PPC))
Xref: news.arizona.edu talk.origins:394321 alt.atheism:1084795
Mark Isaak <eciton@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:57:15 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
I thought that, but it turns out that Epicureans thought that the gds
were dispassionate and unconcerned but very real.
But the Carvarkists in India were definitely atheists.
Off to Wikipedia. . .
Off to Google. . .
Okay, I give. Who were the Carvarkists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvaka
Whoa! The stuff under "Some quotations" sounds just like
an average day on `alt.atheism', from the profoundly
philosophical to the vituperative.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 07:20:58 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) writes:
hlink.net>
Mark Isaak <eciton@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:57:15 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
I thought that, but it turns out that Epicureans thought that the gds
were dispassionate and unconcerned but very real.
But the Carvarkists in India were definitely atheists.
Off to Wikipedia. . .
Off to Google. . .
Okay, I give. Who were the Carvarkists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvaka
Whoa! The stuff under "Some quotations" sounds just like
an average day on `alt.atheism', from the profoundly
philosophical to the vituperative.
The way that the Carvakists and the Epicureans were treated by their
respective majority theist traditions is both instructive and
frightening. In both cases, they were demonised and taken out of
context, and accused of a lack of morals. I fear that the same thing is
happening today against those who are areligious.
--
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: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 05:03:19 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:10:33 GMT, Mark Isaak <eciton@earthlink.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2006.09.28.18.09.25.331164@earthlink.net>
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:57:15 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
I thought that, but it turns out that Epicureans thought that the gds
were dispassionate and unconcerned but very real.
But the Carvarkists in India were definitely atheists.
Off to Wikipedia. . .
Off to Google. . .
Okay, I give. Who were the Carvarkists?
A break-away sect of the Farnarklers.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=farnarkling
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 04:23:50 AM |
|
|
In article <42tmh2di9v5hieqcfr1lltndospas4d2ai@4ax.com>,
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> writes:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
In article <eff2hg$ln8$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
Some of the translations are a bit odd because the Greeks were
polytheists yet it gets translated as "God", and also into some
archaic English.
I'm not sure it's just the translation. There was a tendency to talk
about "God" in the later phases of classical Greek civilization.
I always thought it started with the Neoplatonists, but Epicurus was
far earlier. Maybe John knows the details of the history of the
tendency.
From Cliff Walker's site at http://www.positiveatheism.com
Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not.
Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do?
-- Epicurus, quoted by Robert Green Ingersoll in "Why I Am an
Agnostic"
I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not
approve, and what they approve I do not know.
-- Epicurus, Fragments, no. 187, from The Columbia Dictionary of
Quotations
If the gods listened to the prayers of men, all humankind would
quickly perish since they constantly pray for many evils to befall one
another.
-- Epicurus, quoted from Eugene O'Connor, The Essential Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus, quoted from a personal letter from [name withheld] to
Cliff Walker, (July 9, 2001)
Wow. I thought that was a post-Medieval sentiment:
"If he is God he is not good; if he is good he is not god."
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not
want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but
cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is
in the world?
-- Epicurus (attributed: source unknown)
Grow accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us, since every
good and evil lie in sensation. However, death is the deprivation of
sensation. Therefore, correct understanding that death is nothing to
us makes a mortal life enjoyable, not by adding an endless span of
time but by taking away the longing for immortality. For there is
nothing dreadful in life for the man who has truly comprehended that
there is nothing terrible in not living. Therefore, foolish is the man
who says that he fears death, not because it will cause pain when it
arrives but because anticipation of it is painful. What is no trouble
when it arrives is an idle worry in anticipation. Death, therefore --
the most dreadful of evils -- is nothing to us, since while we exist,
death is not present, and whenever death is present, we do not exist.
It is nothing either to the living or the dead, since it does not
exist for the living, and the dead no longer are.
-- Epicurus (attributed: source unknown)
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 04:57:17 AM |
|
|
Bobby Bryant <> wrote:
In article <42tmh2di9v5hieqcfr1lltndospas4d2ai@4ax.com>,
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> writes:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
In article <eff2hg$ln8$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
Some of the translations are a bit odd because the Greeks were
polytheists yet it gets translated as "God", and also into some
archaic English.
I'm not sure it's just the translation. There was a tendency to talk
about "God" in the later phases of classical Greek civilization.
I always thought it started with the Neoplatonists, but Epicurus was
far earlier. Maybe John knows the details of the history of the
tendency.
The neo-platonists - at least Plotinus and Porphyry - were believers in
agod.
....
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion |
28 Sep 2006 08:33:45 PM |
|
|
In article <1hme4m5.91lcbo1r6m35tN%>,
(John Wilkins) wrote:
Bobby Bryant < > wrote:
In article <42tmh2di9v5hieqcfr1lltndospas4d2ai@4ax.com>,
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> writes:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
In article <eff2hg$ln8$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
Some of the translations are a bit odd because the Greeks were
polytheists yet it gets translated as "God", and also into some
archaic English.
I'm not sure it's just the translation. There was a tendency to talk
about "God" in the later phases of classical Greek civilization.
I always thought it started with the Neoplatonists, but Epicurus was
far earlier. Maybe John knows the details of the history of the
tendency.
The neo-platonists - at least Plotinus and Porphyry - were believers in
agod.
...
A very different god than Yahuwahu.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
