| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
23 Mar 2005 06:33:15 AM |
| Object: |
Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
"New thinkers" of the period included Charles Darwin, who set out to
'prove' an alternative explanation for the origins of man.
Darwin's "Origin of the Species" gave rise to the atheist religion of
Darwinism that ultimately morphed from religion into scientific
'theory' into scientific 'fact' -- and is now rapidly falling into
discredit, even as a 'theory'.
Atheism is in decline because scientific advancements continue to
discredit the theory of evolution. Unlocking the human genome (DNA)
has demolished any argument that favors 'random chance'.
Science has determined a single strand of DNA is a biological
'computer' so advanced it can store more information than the Library
of Congress.
Arguing 'random chance' becomes the equivalent to arguing my computer
could have just as easily evolved out of a collision between a
truckload of TV sets and a truckload of Radio Shack parts, turned
itself on, installed its own software, and then connected itself to
the internet.
----------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4992
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 07:45:18 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:0ao241540kuervnb9badqshll59pgfhscs@4ax.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
"New thinkers" of the period included Charles Darwin, who set out to
'prove' an alternative explanation for the origins of man.
Darwin's "Origin of the Species" gave rise to the atheist religion of
Darwinism that ultimately morphed from religion into scientific
'theory' into scientific 'fact' -- and is now rapidly falling into
discredit, even as a 'theory'.
Atheism is in decline because scientific advancements continue to
discredit the theory of evolution. Unlocking the human genome (DNA)
has demolished any argument that favors 'random chance'.
Science has determined a single strand of DNA is a biological
'computer' so advanced it can store more information than the Library
of Congress.
Arguing 'random chance' becomes the equivalent to arguing my computer
could have just as easily evolved out of a collision between a
truckload of TV sets and a truckload of Radio Shack parts, turned
itself on, installed its own software, and then connected itself to
the internet.
----------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4992
J. Spaceman
What?
Another death knell?
You know you'd think we'd take the hint with all these damn bells
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 10:40:10 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:0ao241540kuervnb9badqshll59pgfhscs@4ax.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
"New thinkers" of the period included Charles Darwin, who set out to
'prove' an alternative explanation for the origins of man.
Darwin's "Origin of the Species" gave rise to the atheist religion of
Darwinism that ultimately morphed from religion into scientific
'theory' into scientific 'fact' -- and is now rapidly falling into
discredit, even as a 'theory'.
Atheism is in decline because scientific advancements continue to
discredit the theory of evolution. Unlocking the human genome (DNA)
has demolished any argument that favors 'random chance'.
Science has determined a single strand of DNA is a biological
'computer' so advanced it can store more information than the Library
of Congress.
Arguing 'random chance' becomes the equivalent to arguing my computer
could have just as easily evolved out of a collision between a
truckload of TV sets and a truckload of Radio Shack parts, turned
itself on, installed its own software, and then connected itself to
the internet.
----------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4992
J. Spaceman
What?
Another death knell?
You know you'd think we'd take the hint with all these damn bells
I just feel like saying to these people that they should give up all technology
and modern medicine. Why should they cherry-pick what science they are going to
allow into their lives?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 04:54:58 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:40:10 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by JPG
<j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com>:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:0ao241540kuervnb9badqshll59pgfhscs@4ax.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
No, it doesn't. Even *I* know that.
<snip>
What?
Another death knell?
You know you'd think we'd take the hint with all these damn bells
I just feel like saying to these people that they should give up all technology
and modern medicine. Why should they cherry-pick what science they are going to
allow into their lives?
Maybe a required warning label on all medicine is the
answer? "Warning - This product was developed using the
knowledge provided by evolutionary biology." The jerks would
either implode, go catatonic, or refuse to take it and die a
lot.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 05:16:02 PM |
|
|
"On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:54:58 -0500, in article
<fks341llum8jgvemg26fnhobek4skflsfi@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova stated..."
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:40:10 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by JPG
<j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com>:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:0ao241540kuervnb9badqshll59pgfhscs@4ax.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
No, it doesn't. Even *I* know that.
<snip>
What?
Another death knell?
You know you'd think we'd take the hint with all these damn bells
I just feel like saying to these people that they should give up all technology
and modern medicine. Why should they cherry-pick what science they are going to
allow into their lives?
Maybe a required warning label on all medicine is the
answer? "Warning - This product was developed using the
knowledge provided by evolutionary biology." The jerks would
either implode, go catatonic, or refuse to take it and die a
lot.
Maybe, when one of there is a movement to put a warning
sticker on school books, someone could suggest that there
also be a warning sticker on medicines?
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It being as impossible that the Organized Body of a Chicken should by the Power
of any Mechanical Motions be formed out of the unorganized Matter of an Egg; as
that the Sun, Moon and Stars, should by mere Mechanism arise out of a Chaos."
Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) Second Defense...Immortality of the Soul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pithecanthropus Erectus" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
24 Mar 2005 06:58:45 AM |
|
|
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:40:10 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by JPG
<j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com>:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:0ao241540kuervnb9badqshll59pgfhscs@4ax.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
No, it doesn't. Even *I* know that.
<snip>
What?
Another death knell?
You know you'd think we'd take the hint with all these damn bells
I just feel like saying to these people that they should give up all technology
and modern medicine. Why should they cherry-pick what science they are going to
allow into their lives?
Maybe a required warning label on all medicine is the
answer? "Warning - This product was developed using the
knowledge provided by evolutionary biology." The jerks would
either implode, go catatonic, or refuse to take it and die a
lot.
Of course we should put a warning label on antibiotic hand soaps which
says "Continued use of this product by the larger public can lead to
stronger strains of illness-causing bacteria which may not respond to
available medicinal antibiotics. Use at society's risk."
But I think that the creationists would fight that tooth-and-nail.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
--
"God Forbid we should actually test anything."
Creationism
"The curses of Deuteronomy 28 will plague America until we return to God
(Ps 9:17). Wealth and military might are not substitutes for God-given
character and blessing. Freedom comes, not from democracy, but Jesus
Christ. The outline below lists our wars & keys to victory. May God lead
us in the strategic and tactical prayers that are required!"
Capitol Hill Action Network, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
24 Mar 2005 08:33:39 AM |
|
|
"Pithecanthropus Erectus" <tuibguy1EGNUM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TJadnej8l-obJN_fRVn-1A@comcast.com...
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:40:10 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by JPG
<j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com>:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:0ao241540kuervnb9badqshll59pgfhscs@4ax.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
No, it doesn't. Even *I* know that.
<snip>
What?
Another death knell?
You know you'd think we'd take the hint with all these damn bells
I just feel like saying to these people that they should give up all
technology
and modern medicine. Why should they cherry-pick what science they are
going to
allow into their lives?
Maybe a required warning label on all medicine is the
answer? "Warning - This product was developed using the
knowledge provided by evolutionary biology." The jerks would
either implode, go catatonic, or refuse to take it and die a
lot.
Of course we should put a warning label on antibiotic hand soaps which
says "Continued use of this product by the larger public can lead to
stronger strains of illness-causing bacteria which may not respond to
available medicinal antibiotics. Use at society's risk."
But I think that the creationists would fight that tooth-and-nail.
--
Bob C.
Ahh all those anti bacterial cleaners ***** me off. How do they think people
develop immune systems FFS?!
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
24 Mar 2005 10:47:34 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:33:39 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
"Pithecanthropus Erectus" <tuibguy1EGNUM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TJadnej8l-obJN_fRVn-1A@comcast.com...
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:40:10 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by JPG
<j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com>:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:0ao241540kuervnb9badqshll59pgfhscs@4ax.com...
Ahh all those anti bacterial cleaners ***** me off. How do they think people
develop immune systems FFS?!
As my mother used to say, playing around in and eating bit of dirt will do you
no harm. Seems she was right.
JPG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
24 Mar 2005 10:54:43 AM |
|
|
"JPG" <j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fer541daibn0ckh417qtj6vftn1fm5nl3q@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:33:39 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
"Pithecanthropus Erectus" <tuibguy1EGNUM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TJadnej8l-obJN_fRVn-1A@comcast.com...
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:40:10 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by JPG
<j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com>:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:0ao241540kuervnb9badqshll59pgfhscs@4ax.com...
Ahh all those anti bacterial cleaners ***** me off. How do they think
people
develop immune systems FFS?!
As my mother used to say, playing around in and eating bit of dirt will do
you
no harm. Seems she was right.
Hoot! Not in my daughter's case. Two years ago, she picked up an amoebic
parasite that way. Was a nightmare to get rid of, plus it caused a
potentially life threatening allergic reaction (hive-like rash). Was a
scary time.
Carry on :)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
26 Mar 2005 08:34:55 AM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"Pithecanthropus Erectus" <tuibguy1EGNUM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TJadnej8l-obJN_fRVn-1A@comcast.com...
Snippage.....
Of course we should put a warning label on antibiotic hand soaps which
says "Continued use of this product by the larger public can lead to
stronger strains of illness-causing bacteria which may not respond to
available medicinal antibiotics. Use at society's risk."
But I think that the creationists would fight that tooth-and-nail.
Ahh all those anti bacterial cleaners ***** me off. How do they think people
develop immune systems FFS?!
Am I the only one who itches like hell after using 'Hyperallergenic'
shower gel ?
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Diane L" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
24 Mar 2005 09:00:43 AM |
|
|
Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
Of course we should put a warning label on antibiotic hand soaps which
says "Continued use of this product by the larger public can lead to
stronger strains of illness-causing bacteria which may not respond to
available medicinal antibiotics. Use at society's risk."
Are there any antibiotic hand soaps? The ones I've seen are all labelled
"anti-bacterial", which is not the same thing. If (when) it does lead to
the development of resistant bacteria, they will be resistant to
bacteriocides like triclosan which are used as disinfectants rather than to
antibiotics like penicillin which are used as medicines.
(A small and pedantic point, I know, but it's a confusion I've been seeing
quite a lot, lately)
Diane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pithecanthropus Erectus" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
24 Mar 2005 01:18:37 PM |
|
|
Diane L wrote:
Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
Of course we should put a warning label on antibiotic hand soaps which
says "Continued use of this product by the larger public can lead to
stronger strains of illness-causing bacteria which may not respond to
available medicinal antibiotics. Use at society's risk."
Are there any antibiotic hand soaps? The ones I've seen are all labelled
"anti-bacterial", which is not the same thing. If (when) it does lead to
the development of resistant bacteria, they will be resistant to
bacteriocides like triclosan which are used as disinfectants rather than to
antibiotics like penicillin which are used as medicines.
(A small and pedantic point, I know, but it's a confusion I've been seeing
quite a lot, lately)
Diane
I stand corrected. The mistake shall never happen again and I will
thank you before I commit hari-kiri.
The shame, the shame.
--
"God Forbid we should actually test anything."
Creationism
"The curses of Deuteronomy 28 will plague America until we return to God
(Ps 9:17). Wealth and military might are not substitutes for God-given
character and blessing. Freedom comes, not from democracy, but Jesus
Christ. The outline below lists our wars & keys to victory. May God lead
us in the strategic and tactical prayers that are required!"
Capitol Hill Action Network, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
24 Mar 2005 03:12:40 PM |
|
|
Pithecanthropus Erectus <tuibguy1EGNUM@comcast.net> wrote in
news:P8edneIPD5kRj97fRVn-sg@comcast.com:
I stand corrected. The mistake shall never happen again and I will
thank you before I commit hari-kiri.
The shame, the shame.
Just make sure you have the web-cam turned on.
--
"Please enjoy a fish *****." --Blood Waters of Dr. Z.
"There is no way out of here. There is no way out." -Manos IV: Torgo Goes
To Baghdad.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
24 Mar 2005 10:17:48 AM |
|
|
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:40:10 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by JPG
<j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com>:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
What?
Another death knell?
You know you'd think we'd take the hint with all these damn bells
I just feel like saying to these people that they should give up all technology
and modern medicine. Why should they cherry-pick what science they are going to
allow into their lives?
Maybe a required warning label on all medicine is the
answer? "Warning - This product was developed using the
knowledge provided by evolutionary biology." The jerks would
either implode, go catatonic, or refuse to take it and die a
lot.
I think they've conceded "micro"-evolution, so this wouldn't
really have an effect. Unless cats are giving birth to
bacteria. :)
--Jeff
--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman
In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.
--Jose Narosky
The urge to save humanity is almost
always a false front for the urge to
rule.
--H.L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "SAM" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
24 Mar 2005 06:45:09 PM |
|
|
Jeffrey Turner <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message news:<1145q1j8g4kuee1@corp.supernews.com>...
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:40:10 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by JPG
<j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com>:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
What?
Another death knell?
You know you'd think we'd take the hint with all these damn bells
I just feel like saying to these people that they should give up all technology
and modern medicine. Why should they cherry-pick what science they are going to
allow into their lives?
Maybe a required warning label on all medicine is the
answer? "Warning - This product was developed using the
knowledge provided by evolutionary biology." The jerks would
either implode, go catatonic, or refuse to take it and die a
lot.
I think they've conceded "micro"-evolution, so this wouldn't
really have an effect. Unless cats are giving birth to
bacteria. :)
Hey, I give birth to bacteria at least twice a day! The cramps
are a doozy.
SAM
--Jeff
--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman
In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.
--Jose Narosky
The urge to save humanity is almost
always a false front for the urge to
rule.
--H.L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
24 Mar 2005 07:25:25 PM |
|
|
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:40:10 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by JPG
<j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com>:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
What?
Another death knell?
You know you'd think we'd take the hint with all these damn bells
I just feel like saying to these people that they should give up
all technology
and modern medicine. Why should they cherry-pick what science they
are going to
allow into their lives?
Maybe a required warning label on all medicine is the
answer? "Warning - This product was developed using the
knowledge provided by evolutionary biology." The jerks would
either implode, go catatonic, or refuse to take it and die a
lot.
I think they've conceded "micro"-evolution, so this wouldn't
really have an effect. Unless cats are giving birth to
bacteria. :)
Or vice-versa...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
24 Mar 2005 04:44:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:17:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jeffrey Turner
<jturner@localnet.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:40:10 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by JPG
<j_peasemold_gruntfuttock@hotmail.com>:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
What?
Another death knell?
You know you'd think we'd take the hint with all these damn bells
I just feel like saying to these people that they should give up all technology
and modern medicine. Why should they cherry-pick what science they are going to
allow into their lives?
Maybe a required warning label on all medicine is the
answer? "Warning - This product was developed using the
knowledge provided by evolutionary biology." The jerks would
either implode, go catatonic, or refuse to take it and die a
lot.
I think they've conceded "micro"-evolution, so this wouldn't
really have an effect. Unless cats are giving birth to
bacteria. :)
Yeah, "It's still a bacterium!". Duh.
And cats only give birth to hairballs...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 08:11:53 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:18 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:0ao241540kuervnb9badqshll59pgfhscs@4ax.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
These bigoted morons imagine they can say any slander they like about
atheist and that we have to put up with it.
Someone tell the liar that there his "atheistic philosophy" is a
fgigment of his deluded imagination.
"New thinkers" of the period included Charles Darwin, who set out to
'prove' an alternative explanation for the origins of man.
And that was a lie too.
Darwin's "Origin of the Species" gave rise to the atheist religion of
Darwinism that ultimately morphed from religion into scientific
'theory' into scientific 'fact' -- and is now rapidly falling into
discredit, even as a 'theory'.
What "atheistic religion of Darwinism", liar?
Atheism is in decline because scientific advancements continue to
discredit the theory of evolution. Unlocking the human genome (DNA)
has demolished any argument that favors 'random chance'.
There's nothing to "be in decline", science wouldn't even be wehere it
is without both the facts and the explanation of evolution, and
"randon chance" is a creationist lie.
Science has determined a single strand of DNA is a biological
'computer' so advanced it can store more information than the Library
of Congress.
Liar.
Arguing 'random chance' becomes the equivalent to arguing my computer
could have just as easily evolved out of a collision between a
truckload of TV sets and a truckload of Radio Shack parts, turned
itself on, installed its own software, and then connected itself to
the internet.
Pretending that science "argues random chance" is a dishonest
falsehood.
----------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4992
Why?
J. Spaceman
What?
Another death knell?
You know you'd think we'd take the hint with all these damn bells
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David D." |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 11:01:07 AM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:0ao241540kuervnb9badqshll59pgfhscs@4ax.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
"New thinkers" of the period included Charles Darwin, who set out
to
'prove' an alternative explanation for the origins of man.
Darwin's "Origin of the Species" gave rise to the atheist religion
of
Darwinism that ultimately morphed from religion into scientific
'theory' into scientific 'fact' -- and is now rapidly falling into
discredit, even as a 'theory'.
Atheism is in decline because scientific advancements continue to
discredit the theory of evolution. Unlocking the human genome (DNA)
has demolished any argument that favors 'random chance'.
Science has determined a single strand of DNA is a biological
'computer' so advanced it can store more information than the
Library
of Congress.
Arguing 'random chance' becomes the equivalent to arguing my
computer
could have just as easily evolved out of a collision between a
truckload of TV sets and a truckload of Radio Shack parts, turned
itself on, installed its own software, and then connected itself to
the internet.
----------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4992
J. Spaceman
What?
Another death knell?
You know you'd think we'd take the hint with all these damn bells
It's a bit like the death knells for Apple computers. We're still
waiting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Secular Fundamentalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 07:07:42 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
Arguing 'random chance' becomes the equivalent to arguing my computer
could have just as easily evolved out of a collision between a
truckload of TV sets and a truckload of Radio Shack parts, turned
itself on, installed its own software, and then connected itself to
the internet.
Maybe. After all random chance doesn't explain Kinsella's spontaneous
frontal lobotomy.
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pithecanthropus Erectus" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 06:45:44 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
"New thinkers" of the period included Charles Darwin, who set out to
'prove' an alternative explanation for the origins of man.
Darwin's "Origin of the Species" gave rise to the atheist religion of
Darwinism that ultimately morphed from religion into scientific
'theory' into scientific 'fact' -- and is now rapidly falling into
discredit, even as a 'theory'.
Atheism is in decline because scientific advancements continue to
discredit the theory of evolution. Unlocking the human genome (DNA)
has demolished any argument that favors 'random chance'.
Science has determined a single strand of DNA is a biological
'computer' so advanced it can store more information than the Library
of Congress.
Arguing 'random chance' becomes the equivalent to arguing my computer
could have just as easily evolved out of a collision between a
truckload of TV sets and a truckload of Radio Shack parts, turned
itself on, installed its own software, and then connected itself to
the internet.
----------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4992
J. Spaceman
The computer may just as well have been left in its parts for all the
good use it has been put to in this case. What a nob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 06:50:16 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
And, right here, this is where it falls apart. I won't continue on
because the rest of this is blatant idiocy.
There is no such thing "atheistic philosophy". The "philosophy of good
morals" comes from parents. Atheists are "bound by moral
considerations" just as any Christian. But, then, many Christians
cannot understand this because they believe themselves immoral and
obviate themselves from the morals of society and instead believe that
God hands them these morals that they would not have otherwise by
themselves.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 12:18:09 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
"New thinkers" of the period included Charles Darwin, who set out to
'prove' an alternative explanation for the origins of man.
Darwin's "Origin of the Species" gave rise to the atheist religion of
Darwinism that ultimately morphed from religion into scientific
'theory' into scientific 'fact' -- and is now rapidly falling into
discredit, even as a 'theory'.
Atheism is in decline because scientific advancements continue to
discredit the theory of evolution. Unlocking the human genome (DNA)
has demolished any argument that favors 'random chance'.
Science has determined a single strand of DNA is a biological
'computer' so advanced it can store more information than the Library
of Congress.
Arguing 'random chance' becomes the equivalent to arguing my computer
could have just as easily evolved out of a collision between a
truckload of TV sets and a truckload of Radio Shack parts, turned
itself on, installed its own software, and then connected itself to
the internet.
----------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4992
J. Spaceman
These writers have two jobs. Primarily, they preach to their choir, in
this case the religious folks too ignorant to have sat through the
philosophy class that explains the blaring inconsistencies between
religion and philosophical theology. Second, they try to ***** off the
party that does not immediately agree with what they're writing about.
It seems to be where the coin is in politics nowdays, eh? Hate and
theological back-patting make more money than intelligence and reason.
I'm sure this guy must feel really good about himself.
I'd be surprised if the writer is really ignorant enough to use the old
"watch made without a watchmaker argument." William Paley wrote that in
1802, okay? WE'VE HEARD IT. And whether you "like" the solution or not,
Darwin found the answer to an otherwise trite problem.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 06:51:15 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
How many times do we have to read this crap ?
It's been posted here at least 4 times before.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 07:06:30 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
"New thinkers" of the period included Charles Darwin, who set out to
'prove' an alternative explanation for the origins of man.
Darwin's "Origin of the Species" gave rise to the atheist religion of
Darwinism that ultimately morphed from religion into scientific
'theory' into scientific 'fact' -- and is now rapidly falling into
discredit, even as a 'theory'.
Atheism is in decline because scientific advancements continue to
discredit the theory of evolution. Unlocking the human genome (DNA)
has demolished any argument that favors 'random chance'.
Science has determined a single strand of DNA is a biological
'computer' so advanced it can store more information than the Library
of Congress.
Arguing 'random chance' becomes the equivalent to arguing my computer
could have just as easily evolved out of a collision between a
truckload of TV sets and a truckload of Radio Shack parts, turned
itself on, installed its own software, and then connected itself to
the internet.
----------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4992
Wow. That one's clueless enough to be one of our regular customers.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
24 Mar 2005 11:03:28 AM |
|
|
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
[...]
Read it at http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4992
Wow. That one's clueless enough to be one of our regular customers.
As long as it is on some inbred backwater website I don't care...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jcon" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
25 Mar 2005 08:29:18 AM |
|
|
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
"New thinkers" of the period included Charles Darwin, who set out
to
'prove' an alternative explanation for the origins of man.
Darwin's "Origin of the Species" gave rise to the atheist religion
of
Darwinism that ultimately morphed from religion into scientific
'theory' into scientific 'fact' -- and is now rapidly falling into
discredit, even as a 'theory'.
Atheism is in decline because scientific advancements continue to
discredit the theory of evolution. Unlocking the human genome (DNA)
has demolished any argument that favors 'random chance'.
Science has determined a single strand of DNA is a biological
'computer' so advanced it can store more information than the
Library
of Congress.
Arguing 'random chance' becomes the equivalent to arguing my
computer
could have just as easily evolved out of a collision between a
truckload of TV sets and a truckload of Radio Shack parts, turned
itself on, installed its own software, and then connected itself to
the internet.
----------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4992
Wow. That one's clueless enough to be one of our regular customers.
I was planning to write a point by point rebuttal of the
article, but unfortunately my head exploded halfway through.
-jc
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
25 Mar 2005 08:47:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, "jcon" <cirejcon@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
Wow. That one's clueless enough to be one of our regular customers.
I was planning to write a point by point rebuttal of the
article, but unfortunately my head exploded halfway through.
And after that, the second half appeared to make sense...
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roux Claude" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 07:37:17 AM |
|
|
Once for all, the confusion between science and religion should be ended.
Religion is based on faith, which means that you accept what is conveyed by
holy texts without questioning any of their basic beliefs.
Science is based on doubt, which means that each description of a fact is
always accepted after careful cross-experimentation, within the framework of
a given theory, knowing that this piece of fact may be one day questioned or
reinterpreted within a more general framework.
To equate religion with science is a very odd and very old argument, which
consists in denying to science any more importance than religion as it would
just be another sort of belief. However this argument does not stand, as
science is not based on a set of beliefs, but on a set of assumptions, which
can be abandoned when a theoretical framework does not resist anymore to
anomalous facts. Up to now, the evolutionist framework has proven quite
resistant in its confrontation to new facts, and it has not been challenged
by any new theory that would have been more predictive to account for the
diversity of life on our planet. But, and this is the strength of science,
if this framework seems today the best suited to explain how life
diversified, it does not entail that one day it will not be challenged by
another theory. This is how science works. Nothing is carved in marble:
every theory can be challenged by another theory as long as this new theory
proves that it is more explicative and more predictive than the existing
framework. A theory is a toolbox which gives scientists the means to improve
their understanding of nature. If the tools are too worn out and too
limited, then they are simply replaced by better tools. This aspect of
science is extremely difficult to convey as people often have the naïve
impression that science is built on rocks of knowledge, rather than rocking
on ever questioned assumptions.
Claude
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:0ao241540kuervnb9badqshll59pgfhscs@4ax.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
"New thinkers" of the period included Charles Darwin, who set out to
'prove' an alternative explanation for the origins of man.
Darwin's "Origin of the Species" gave rise to the atheist religion of
Darwinism that ultimately morphed from religion into scientific
'theory' into scientific 'fact' -- and is now rapidly falling into
discredit, even as a 'theory'.
Atheism is in decline because scientific advancements continue to
discredit the theory of evolution. Unlocking the human genome (DNA)
has demolished any argument that favors 'random chance'.
Science has determined a single strand of DNA is a biological
'computer' so advanced it can store more information than the Library
of Congress.
Arguing 'random chance' becomes the equivalent to arguing my computer
could have just as easily evolved out of a collision between a
truckload of TV sets and a truckload of Radio Shack parts, turned
itself on, installed its own software, and then connected itself to
the internet.
----------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4992
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pithecanthropus Erectus" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 08:12:23 AM |
|
|
Roux Claude wrote:
Once for all, the confusion between science and religion should be ended.
Religion is based on faith, which means that you accept what is conveyed by
holy texts without questioning any of their basic beliefs.
Science is based on doubt, which means that each description of a fact is
always accepted after careful cross-experimentation, within the framework of
a given theory, knowing that this piece of fact may be one day questioned or
reinterpreted within a more general framework.
To equate religion with science is a very odd and very old argument, which
consists in denying to science any more importance than religion as it would
just be another sort of belief. However this argument does not stand, as
science is not based on a set of beliefs, but on a set of assumptions, which
can be abandoned when a theoretical framework does not resist anymore to
anomalous facts. Up to now, the evolutionist framework has proven quite
resistant in its confrontation to new facts, and it has not been challenged
by any new theory that would have been more predictive to account for the
diversity of life on our planet. But, and this is the strength of science,
if this framework seems today the best suited to explain how life
diversified, it does not entail that one day it will not be challenged by
another theory. This is how science works. Nothing is carved in marble:
every theory can be challenged by another theory as long as this new theory
proves that it is more explicative and more predictive than the existing
framework. A theory is a toolbox which gives scientists the means to improve
their understanding of nature. If the tools are too worn out and too
limited, then they are simply replaced by better tools. This aspect of
science is extremely difficult to convey as people often have the naïve
impression that science is built on rocks of knowledge, rather than rocking
on ever questioned assumptions.
Claude
Unfortunately you are preaching to the choir here. You are correct in
your statements, but this has been said here in T.O. and in Alt.Atheism
enough times that it should be engraved in marble.
The thing is that the underlying political chasm which separates this
reality from this reality is growing wider because of a concerted and
well-funded drive on the part of fundamentalists. Their goal is not
related to truth, their goal is to create a non-democratic Christian
society in which all of us submit to Jesus. ALLLLLLLL of us.
http://www.prayeralert.org/alertarchives/alert-050102.html
The Establishment Clause is not important to them. Freedom of religion
to them is the right to preach to everyone everywhere at anytime.
Reason and logic are their enemy and they don't care about the
difference between science and religion, because that kind of
hair-splitting only prolongs the time between now and the rapture.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ferrous Patella" |
|
| Title: Re Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 01:20:33 PM |
|
|
news:0ao241540kuervnb9badqshll59pgfhscs@4ax.com by Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
[...]
My gosh! First sentence and the writer is in la-la land. "Atheistic
philosophy" demands only one thing - that its adherents believe there are
no gods.
Read it at http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4992
J. Spaceman
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
"Nature as God's "reality" show - what a concept!"
--A t.o. poster who wishes to remain anonymous
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Columnist: Science - Atheism's Death Knell? |
23 Mar 2005 12:15:35 PM |
|
|
on 23 Mar 2005 in alt.atheism, Jason Spaceman dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
Atheistic philosophy demands the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, unbound by moral considerations outside those
imposed by society.
No, it doesn't.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
