Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Religions > Atheism > Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 5

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Jason Spaceman"
Date:	24 Jun 2005 11:18:55 AM
Object:	Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

From the article:
-------------------------------------
Driving around yesterday, I was listening to Kojo Nandi on WKMU, one of
those ultra-liberal, anti-American, Commie-inspired public radio stations.
Someone called in to talk about evolution. I almost ran off the road as I
heard this intelligent-sounding fellow talk about how many scientists have
given up on evolution, that it's not even really a theory but a hypothesis,
that there's no proof of evolution, that the fossil record is a joke, and
that "fairness" demands that we teach Intelligent Design as well as
evolution.
He was so full of buffalo lard, it's hard to even know where to begin, but
the sad reality is that people like this can't be swayed by reason, logic,
or facts. They've distorted the world to fit their own bizarre world view.
And then I remembered two things:
First, a quote in this month's Discover Magazine by Nobel laureate Leon
Lederman in his 1993 book The God Particle. He said, “The Higgs field, the
standard model, and our picture of how God made the universe depend on
finding the Higgs boson." And I realized something. Scientists have no
problem with God. Many physicists, biologists, astronomers and others are
deeply religious. One of Einstein's most famous quotes was a result of his
dismay at the implications of quantum physics--namely that the world is
governed by probability curves and is not Newtonian. Einstein: "I cannot
believe that God plays dice with the world.
Many scientists see no dispute between God and science. Why then do so many
at the fringe of Christianity get themselves tied in knots over science.
---------------------------------------
Read it at http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/23/091106.php
J. Spaceman
.

User: "Greywolf"
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	27 Jun 2005 04:56:07 AM

"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:Xns967F4A7096D7Bnotreallyjspacemanho@216.196.97.142...

From the article:
-------------------------------------
Driving around yesterday, I was listening to Kojo Nandi on WKMU, one of
those ultra-liberal, anti-American, Commie-inspired public radio stations.
Someone called in to talk about evolution. I almost ran off the road as I
heard this intelligent-sounding fellow talk about how many scientists have
given up on evolution, that it's not even really a theory but a
hypothesis,
that there's no proof of evolution, that the fossil record is a joke, and
that "fairness" demands that we teach Intelligent Design as well as
evolution.

He was so full of buffalo lard, it's hard to even know where to begin, but
the sad reality is that people like this can't be swayed by reason, logic,
or facts. They've distorted the world to fit their own bizarre world view.

And then I remembered two things:

First, a quote in this month's Discover Magazine by Nobel laureate Leon
Lederman in his 1993 book The God Particle. He said, "The Higgs field, the
standard model, and our picture of how God made the universe depend on
finding the Higgs boson." And I realized something. Scientists have no
problem with God. Many physicists, biologists, astronomers and others are
deeply religious. One of Einstein's most famous quotes was a result of his
dismay at the implications of quantum physics--namely that the world is
governed by probability curves and is not Newtonian. Einstein: "I cannot
believe that God plays dice with the world.

Many scientists see no dispute between God and science. Why then do so
many
at the fringe of Christianity get themselves tied in knots over science.
---------------------------------------

Read it at http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/23/091106.php

J. Spaceman

That is what I find so scary about the current rise of the right-wing
evangelical movement. You're absolutely dead on about people like that not
being swayed by logic, reason or facts. It wouldn't be as bad if they were
left to their own devices, but they are "sheep" that are easily swayed by
unscrupulous people (TV Evangelists and the like) who *know* they've got a
lot of peanut-brains in their hip pocket and could easily drive this country
into ruin. One disadvantage science has is that it is very complex. If is
easier for Joe-Blow Christian to pore over the Bible than to go through a
handbook on particle physics. The Fundy ministers, pastors or whatever know
this and exploit this to the hilt. Couple that with censorship of science
textbooks and the over-the-top attempts to not "offend" the values of the
religionists and you get what your heard on your car radio. The religionists
don't give a hoot about the truth, they just want to feel "happy." Damn,
those misguided scientists.
Isn't it odd that when the scientists produce a microwave oven or put man on
the moon, the scientists are considered "brilliant," but once they challenge
the "veracity of scripture," they haven't the foggiest notion about what
they're talking about?
Greywolf
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	27 Jun 2005 02:36:49 PM

Greywolf wrote:

"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:Xns967F4A7096D7Bnotreallyjspacemanho@216.196.97.142...

From the article:
-------------------------------------
Driving around yesterday, I was li stening to Kojo Nandi on WKMU, one of
those ultra-liberal, anti-American, Commie-inspired public radio stations.
Someone called in to talk about evolution. I almost ran off the road as I
heard this intelligent-sounding fellow talk about how ma ny scientists have
given up on evolution, that it's not even really a theory but a
hypothesis,
that there's no proof of evolution, that the fossil record is a joke, and
that "fairness" demands that we teach Intelligent Design as well as
evolution.

He was so full of buffalo lard, it's hard to even know where to begin, but
the sad reality is that people like this can't be swayed by reason, logic,
or facts. They've distorted the world to fit their own bizarre world view.

And then I remembered two things:

First, a quote in this month's Discover Magazine by Nobel laureate Leon
Lederman in his 1993 book The God Particle. He said, "The Higgs field, the
standard model, and our picture of how God made the universe depend on
finding the Higgs boson." And I realized something. Scientists have no
problem with God. Many physicists, biologists, astronomers and others are
deeply religious. One of Einstein's most famous quotes was a result of his
dismay at the implications of quantum physics--namely that the world is
governed by probability curves and is not Newtonian. Einstein: "I cannot
believe that God plays dice with the world.

Many scientists see no dispute between God and science. Why then do so
many
at the fringe of Christianity get themselves tied in knots over science.
---------------------------------------

Read it at http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/23/091106.php

J. Spaceman

That is what I find so scary about the current rise of the right-wing
evangelical movement. You're absolutely dead on about people like that not
being swayed by logic, reason or facts. It wouldn't be as bad if they were
left to their own devices, but they are "sheep" that are easily swayed by
unscrupulous people (TV Evangelists and the like) who *know* they've got a
lot of peanut-brains in their hip pocket and could easily drive this country
into ruin. One disadvant age science has is that it is very complex. If is
easier for Joe-Blow Christian to pore over the Bible than to go through a
handbook on particle physics. The Fundy ministers, pastors or whatever know
this and exploit this to the hilt. Couple that with censorship of science
textbooks and the over-the-top attempts to not "offend" the values of the
religionists and you get what your heard on your car radio. The religionists
don't give a hoot about the truth, they just want to feel "happy." Damn,
those misguided scientists.

Isn't it odd that when the scientists produce a microwave oven or put man on
the moon, the scientists are considered "brilliant," but once they challenge
the "veracity of scripture," they haven't the foggie st notion about what
they're talking about?

Did you know that all you need to do to be labeled a fundy is
to disagree with any prevailing atheist dogma in a.a.? This
is not something you, as an atheist would know unless you
found yourself on the wrong side--the atheistically incorrect
side--of an issue as I have.* Upon further investigation I
noticed the same kind of fundy behavior you describe above,
right here among atheists. Examples upon request.
There seems to be an unspoken rule that it is a no no to criticize
an atheist for the same kinds of behavior that we land on fundies
for. But I personally think we should have much higher standards
than they do. What do we have going for us if we don't hold the
rational or ethical high ground?
* Try this: the next time you see "Hitler" invoked, just say
that in your opinion, Hitler wasn't a Christian. You won't
have to change your handle--people won't even look at who
you are before attacking you as a clueless fundy.
.

User: "Mark Stahl"
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	28 Jun 2005 11:02:34 PM

<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1119883009.377630.46530@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Greywolf wrote:

"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:Xns967F4A7096D7Bnotreallyjspacemanho@216.196.97.142...

From the article:
-------------------------------------
Driving around yesterday, I was li stening to Kojo Nandi on WKMU, one
of
those ultra-liberal, anti-American, Commie-inspired public radio
stations.
Someone called in to talk about evolution. I almost ran off the road as
I
heard this intelligent-sounding fellow talk about how ma ny scientists
have
given up on evolution, that it's not even really a theory but a
hypothesis,
that there's no proof of evolution, that the fossil record is a joke,
and
that "fairness" demands that we teach Intelligent Design as well as
evolution.

He was so full of buffalo lard, it's hard to even know where to begin,
but
the sad reality is that people like this can't be swayed by reason,
logic,
or facts. They've distorted the world to fit their own bizarre world
view.

And then I remembered two things:

First, a quote in this month's Discover Magazine by Nobel laureate Leon
Lederman in his 1993 book The God Particle. He said, "The Higgs field,
the
standard model, and our picture of how God made the universe depend on
finding the Higgs boson." And I realized something. Scientists have no
problem with God. Many physicists, biologists, astronomers and others
are
deeply religious. One of Einstein's most famous quotes was a result of
his
dismay at the implications of quantum physics--namely that the world is
governed by probability curves and is not Newtonian. Einstein: "I
cannot
believe that God plays dice with the world.

Many scientists see no dispute between God and science. Why then do so
many
at the fringe of Christianity get themselves tied in knots over
science.
---------------------------------------

Read it at http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/23/091106.php

J. Spaceman

That is what I find so scary about the current rise of the right-wing
evangelical movement. You're absolutely dead on about people like that
not
being swayed by logic, reason or facts. It wouldn't be as bad if they
were
left to their own devices, but they are "sheep" that are easily swayed by
unscrupulous people (TV Evangelists and the like) who *know* they've got
a
lot of peanut-brains in their hip pocket and could easily drive this
country
into ruin. One disadvant age science has is that it is very complex. If
is
easier for Joe-Blow Christian to pore over the Bible than to go through a
handbook on particle physics. The Fundy ministers, pastors or whatever
know
this and exploit this to the hilt. Couple that with censorship of science
textbooks and the over-the-top attempts to not "offend" the values of the
religionists and you get what your heard on your car radio. The
religionists
don't give a hoot about the truth, they just want to feel "happy." Damn,
those misguided scientists.

Isn't it odd that when the scientists produce a microwave oven or put man
on
the moon, the scientists are considered "brilliant," but once they
challenge
the "veracity of scripture," they haven't the foggie st notion about what
they're talking about?

Did you know that all you need to do to be labeled a fundy is
to disagree with any prevailing atheist dogma in a.a.?

It's a natural reaction around here to assume that someone who has taken a
position contrary to logic and evidence is some variety of religious
fundamentalist, since they're almost always the ones doing it (I assume that
'atheist dogma' can only refer to positions supported by reason, evidence,
and logic, of course.)
What I want to know is what this outburst has to do with what Spaceman and
Greywolf posted concerning evolution and ID. Seems like a totally random
tangent to me. Care to explain?

This
is not something you, as an atheist would know unless you
found yourself on the wrong side--the atheistically incorrect
side--of an issue as I have.*

There aren't any positions, other than the non-existence of gods, that could
possibly be considered "atheistically correct" or incorrect. This requires
much more information. Perhaps it was your debate style that caused the
confusion.

Upon further investigation I
noticed the same kind of fundy behavior you describe above,
right here among atheists. Examples upon request.

There seems to be an unspoken rule that it is a no no to criticize
an atheist for the same kinds of behavior that we land on fundies
for. But I personally think we should have much higher standards
than they do. What do we have going for us if we don't hold the
rational or ethical high ground?

* Try this: the next time you see "Hitler" invoked, just say
that in your opinion, Hitler wasn't a Christian. You won't
have to change your handle--people won't even look at who
you are before attacking you as a clueless fundy.

Well, that wouldn't be very smart. After all, Hitler was baptized, professed
his christianity, and was never excommunicated. Therefore, the matter of his
religion was not a matter of opinion, but fact. Claiming otherwise is the
kind of thing people in a.a. see religious fundies do quite a lot of, so
it's pretty obvious why you were mistaken for one. You should just try to
avoid writing silly things like that in the future to prevent the confusion.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	29 Jun 2005 10:39:23 AM

Mark Stahl wrote:

<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1119883009.377630.46530@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[...]

Isn't it odd that when the scientists produce a microwave oven or put man
on
the moon, the scientists are considered "brilliant," but once they
challenge
the "veracity of scripture," they haven't the foggie st notion about what
they're talking about?

Did you know that all you need to do to be labeled a fundy is
to disagree with any prevailing atheist dogma in a.a.?

It's a natural reaction around here to assume that someone who has taken a
position contrary to logic and evidence is some variety of religious
fundamentalist,

I think you validate my point. Here you assume that
questioning "Hitler was a Christian" is "contrary to logic
and evidence" without ever seeing what the argument against
is. This is dismissal before examination. It's what fundies do.
Is that standard good enough for you? It ain't for me.

since they're almost always the ones doing it

So why pay any attention to what they say?

(I assume that
'atheist dogma' can only refer to positions supported by reason, evidence,
and logic, of course.)

Is this assumption something you can support by reason and
evidence? If so, do so. If not, then I submit you are passing
off opinion as fact.

What I want to know is what this outburst has to do with what Spaceman and
Greywolf posted concerning evolution and ID. Seems like a totally random
tangent to me.
Care to explain?

If you think it would help.
The statement directly preceeding my own statement said:
"Isn't it odd that when the scientists produce a microwave oven or put
man on
the moon, the scientists are considered "brilliant," but once they
challenge
the "veracity of scripture," they haven't the foggiest notion about
what
they're talking about?"
This statement refers to a change in attitude of fundies regards
scientists, depending on what position a scientist is taking.
I was pointing out a similiar attitude of some number of
atheists here. So why single out fundies when atheists do
it too? Know what I mean?
I know what I am talking about since I am an atheist
who merely questioned the "Hitler was Christian" dogma.
Note I didn't say Hitler was an atheist or a Darwinist or
anything braindead like that. All I said was I had my doubts
he was Christian. But that was enough.

This
is not something you, as an atheist would know unless you
found yourself on the wr ong side--the atheistically incorrect
side--of an issue as I have.*

There aren't any positions, other than the non-existence of gods, that could
possibly be considered "atheistically correct" or incorrect.

So you would think. It should be obvious that my use
"atheistically correct" and the like is sarcasm and the
result of my experiences, and a product of my cynicism
about claims that atheists are rational but theists are not.
Yeah, right.

This requires
much more informatio n.

Well, more information, anyway.
Perhaps it was your debate style that caused the

confusion.

Perhaps, but why do you assume as much instead of
considering my proposition? Because it just can't be
true?

Upon further investigation I
noticed the same kind of fundy behavior you describe above,
right here among atheists. Examples upon request.

There seems to be an unspok en rule that it is a no no to criticize
an atheist for the same kinds of behavior that we land on fundies
for. But I personally think we should have much higher standards
than they do. What do we have going for us if we don't hold the
rational or ethical high ground?
* Try this: the next time you see "Hitler" invoked, just say
that in your opinion, Hitler wasn't a Christian. You won't
have to change your handle--people won't even look at who
you are before attacking you as a clueless fundy.

Well, that wouldn't be very smart.

Questioning the dogma wouldn't be very smart? Because you
might get called a fundy if you even pretend to dispute it?
After all, Hitler was baptized, professed

his christianity, and was never excommunicated.

Not altogether true. For instance there is more than
one way to be excommunicated in the Catholic Church.
You do not consider this. I'm not arguing the point
here. I'm showing you I CAN argue the point here.
Ergo, your certainty that there can be no argument against
the proposition, as a way of dismissing the proposition,
isn't valid.

Therefore, the matter of his
religion was not a matter of opinion, but fact.

What you claim regards Hitler may be fact but the conclusion
you draw from it--that "Hitler = Christian"--is not. It is opinion.

Claiming otherwise is the
kind of thing people in a.a. see religious fundies do quite a lot of,

Yes I know. But that isn't a good reason for atheists to go
into auto knee-jerk mode: "you say this therefore you must
be that." Even if doing so renders you right 90% of the time.
If your spelling was 90% accurate most people would consider
you a lousy speller. That 10% error rate is just too high. Don't
you agree? Chris Lee says that atheists don't stereotype people
like fundies do. But I was stereotyped, completely, and 180
degrees out.

so
it's pretty obvious why you were mistaken for one.

Yes: stereotyping, of the oblivious kind.

You should just try to
avoid writing silly things like that in the future to prevent the confusion.

By "silly" you mean that no argument against the claim
Hitler = Christian can be taken seriously?
You haven't even heard my argument and you dismiss it
preemptively?
Isn't this _exactly_ what fundies do?
Care to explain?
n
.

User: "Mark Stahl"
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	03 Jul 2005 06:11:15 PM

<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1120041563.365495.50980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Mark Stahl wrote:

<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1119883009.377630.46530@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[...]

Isn't it odd that when the scientists produce a microwave oven or put
man
on
the moon, the scientists are considered "brilliant," but once they
challenge
the "veracity of scripture," they haven't the foggie st notion about
what
they're talking about?

Did you know that all you need to do to be labeled a fundy is
to disagree with any prevailing atheist dogma in a.a.?

It's a natural reaction around here to assume that someone who has taken
a
position contrary to logic and evidence is some variety of religious
fundamentalist,

I think you validate my point.

I am explaining why I think something that was slightly unfortunate happened
to you. You seem, to me, to have utterly blown it out of proportion.

Here you assume that
questioning "Hitler was a Christian" is "contrary to logic
and evidence" without ever seeing what the argument against
is.

Hardly. This argument has been had dozens, if not hundreds, of times in this
newsgroup. You may as well have posted that the moon landings were hoaxes or
something, for all the genuine expectation of a new argument is. If you
actually have (had) something new, I'm sure you deserved an apology. But I
doubt that's the case, still, so why are you still whining about it?

This is dismissal before examination. It's what fundies do.

Hardly. It's been examined and found lacking many, many times.

Is that standard good enough for you? It ain't for me.

Irrelevent, since your claim is false.

since they're almost always the ones doing it

So why pay any attention to what they say?

Sport, I suppose.

(I assume that
'atheist dogma' can only refer to positions supported by reason,
evidence,
and logic, of course.)

Is this assumption something you can support by reason and
evidence? If so, do so. If not, then I submit you are passing
off opinion as fact.

I can only guess at what you meant by "atheist dogma". My evidence is that
atheists don't have anything in common other than their lack of god-belief,
which is often (though not always) the product of an attempt to assess the
evidence at hand and thus becomes something of another thing that atheists
at least often try to strive for. Obviously it was a guess, since I can't
read your mind, but it's not really an "opinion".

What I want to know is what this outburst has to do with what Spaceman
and
Greywolf posted concerning evolution and ID. Seems like a totally random
tangent to me.

Care to explain?

No, actually. Where did the atheists change their valuation of science and
scientists, depending on the position? I'm pretty confused about what you're
complaining about here. I think the idea of the previous statement is that
the scientific method is either valid, or it isn't, and the opinions of
scientists on such matters should depend on the evidence behind them instead
of what their claim is about. Somehow you used that as an opportunity to
complain that someone insulted you here for bringing up a shopworn canard
about Hitler. I really don't get the connection. At all. Sorry.

I know what I am talking about since I am an atheist
who merely questioned the "Hitler was Christian" dogma.

Note I didn't say Hitler was an atheist or a Darwinist or
anything braindead like that. All I said was I had my doubts
he was Christian. But that was enough.

Yeah, since that's the kind of long-discredited thing that gets tossed off
by christian fundamentalists here lots of times, it's pretty obvious why
someone would lump you in there. Was it a little knee-jerkish? I suppose,
maybe. A big deal? Hardly.

This
is not something you, as an atheist would know unless you
found yourself on the wr ong side--the atheistically incorrect
side--of an issue as I have.*

There aren't any positions, other than the non-existence of gods, that
could
possibly be considered "atheistically correct" or incorrect.

Everyone is prone to being irrational sometimes about some things, so anyone
who made such a blanket statement is really overreaching. But the specific
claim, about science and scientific findings, is something that has been
problematic with religionists of all stripes, and christian fundamentalists
in the USA quite a lot lately and so it makes sense that someone might
complain about it.

This requires
much more informatio n.

Well, more information, anyway.

Perhaps it was your debate style that caused the

confusion.

Perhaps, but why do you assume as much

I was unaware that a suggestion couched with a "perhaps" was an assumption.

instead of
considering my proposition? Because it just can't be
true?

Remember that I wasn't the one who called you a fundie without "considering
your proposition". But I am saying I can see how someone might do that in
a.a., since it's been done to death here. Do you get that?

* Try this: the next time you see "Hitler" invoked, just say
that in your opinion, Hitler wasn't a Christian. You won't
have to change your handle--people won't even look at who
you are before attacking you as a clueless fundy.

Well, that wouldn't be very smart.

Questioning the dogma wouldn't be very smart? Because you
might get called a fundy if you even pretend to dispute it?

Since it is extremely well established that Hitler was a christian, unless
you have some sort of groundbreaking historical scholarship to share it
wouldn't be a smart claim to make in a.a. unless you're just looking to get
flamed.

After all, Hitler was baptized, professed

his christianity, and was never excommunicated.

Not altogether true.

I'm pretty sure it is.

For instance there is more than
one way to be excommunicated in the Catholic Church.
You do not consider this.

I'm considering it, but I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise.

I'm not arguing the point
here. I'm showing you I CAN argue the point here.

Not well, you aren't.

Ergo, your certainty that there can be no argument against
the proposition, as a way of dismissing the proposition,
isn't valid.

Sure it is. Especially since my only point is that you were flamed because
you brought up something that's been done to death here is all.

Therefore, the matter of his
religion was not a matter of opinion, but fact.

What you claim regards Hitler may be fact but the conclusion
you draw from it--that "Hitler = Christian"--is not. It is opinion.

If what I claim about Hitler is fact, the conclusion that he was christian
is the only possible one. Please. There is no "opinion" involved.

Claiming otherwise is the
kind of thing people in a.a. see religious fundies do quite a lot of,

Yes I know. But that isn't a good reason for atheists to go
into auto knee-jerk mode: "you say this therefore you must
be that."

A good reason? Yeah, I'd say that bringing up a poor old argument in a
usenet group actually is a really good reason to go into knee jerk mode. You
were improperly lumped in with some group you're not part of, but this isn't
debate club, it's usenet. That's hardly the worst thing that can happen to
you. Most people use the "if it talks like a duck" test, which is all an
informal discussion really calls for from most folks. What is it you want,
anyway?

Even if doing so renders you right 90% of the time.
If your spelling was 90% accurate most people would consider
you a lousy speller. That 10% error rate is just too high. Don't
you agree?

About spelling? I guess. About knee jerk reactions to annoying old arguments
that trolls continually use in a newsgroup? Eh.

Chris Lee says that atheists don't stereotype people
like fundies do. But I was stereotyped, completely, and 180
degrees out.

All I'm saying is that you should probably not write the same (discredited)
stuff that a particular group uses to troll a newsgroup if you don't want to
be lumped in with that group. It's purely practical advice. Atheists
stereotype the typical amount, in my experience.

so
it's pretty obvious why you were mistaken for one.

Yes: stereotyping, of the oblivious kind.

So? I mean, it's not like you weren't basically asking for it. And there are
worse things. Geez.

You should just try to
avoid writing silly things like that in the future to prevent the
confusion.

By "silly" you mean that no argument against the claim
Hitler = Christian can be taken seriously?

I have honestly never, ever seen one and I've been witness to the trainwreck
that literally dozens of such flamefests have been around alt.atheism.... so
all I'm saying is that you were leaving your house unlocked with a neon sign
saying "rob me!" there, you know? I mean, how many "evolution is an atheist
conspiracy against god" and "nasa faked the moon landings" posts do you have
to read before you make assumptions about those who post them?

You haven't even heard my argument and you dismiss it
preemptively?

I'll bet I have.

Isn't this _exactly_ what fundies do?

No.

Care to explain?

If you don't get it by now, I doubt you ever will, so I'll leave it at that.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	05 Jul 2005 07:47:15 PM

Mark Stahl wrote:

<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1120041563.365495.50980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Mark Stahl wrote:

<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1119883009.377630.46530@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

Is that standard good enough for you? It ain't for me.

Irrelevent, since your claim is false.

My claim, that I doubt Hitler was a Christian, is false?

since they're almost always the ones doing it

So why pay any attention to what they say?

Sport, I suppose.

Me too when I pay attention to fallacious reasoning
regardless of the source.

(I assume that
'atheist dogma' can only refer to positions supported by reason,
evidence,
and logic, of course.)

Is this assumption something you can support by reason and
evidence? If so, do so. If not, then I submit you are passing
off opinion as fact.

I can only guess at what you meant by "atheist dogma".

OK. I withdraw my conclusion. You're right.
My evidence is that

atheists don't have anything in common other than their lack of god-belief,
which is often (though not always) the product of an attempt to assess the
evidence at hand and thus becomes something of another thing that atheists
at least often try to strive for.

Two things then.

Obviously it was a guess, since I can't
read your mind, but it's not really an "opinion".

What I want to know is what this outburst has to do with what Spaceman
and
Greywolf posted concerning evolution and ID. Seems like a totally random
tangent to me.

Care to explain?

No, actually. Where did the atheists change their valuation of science and
scientists, depending on the position?

Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to some atheists attitude
toward science. I was referring to the attitude in general.
I'm pretty confused about what you're

complaining about here. I think the idea of the previous statement is that
the scientific method is either valid, or it isn't, and the opinions of
scientists on such matters should depend on the evidence behind them instead
of what their claim is about. Somehow you used that as an opportunity to
complain that someone insulted you here for bringing up a shopworn canard
about Hitler. I really don't get the connection. At all. Sorry.

I didn't say anything about being insulted. I didn't bring
up any "shopworn canard about Hitler" either.

Yeah, since that's the kind of long-discredited thing that gets tossed off
by christian fundamentalists here lots of times,

No. What gets tossed off here is "Hitler was an atheist"
or Darwinist. I don't think I've ever seen a fundy
simply post that he doubted that Hitler was a Christian.
Just like you don't see atheists post that they doubt Hitler
was an atheist. It just isn't something a fundy (or an
atheist) is likely to say. He is more likely to say that
it is absolutely idiotic to claim Hitler was a Christian,
and (like I said) _much_ more likely to be calling Hitler
(pathetically) an atheist or (comically) a "humanist" because
the fundy mind is just as closed as the atheist "fundy" mind
who touts his own unjustified certainty in the opposing view.
I suppose that, under the circumstances, trying to keep
an open mind/look at it objectively _is_ an invitation
to be flamed.

it's pretty obvious why
someone would lump you in there.

But NOT because it is a dogma? If it is not a dogma, why
did so many people just assume I was a fundy and not
an atheist who had a different point of view? Because no
matter how individualist an atheist is, this is one thing
no atheist can question? You say:
" There aren't any positions, other than the non-existence
of gods, that could possibly be considered 'atheistically
correct' or incorrect."
And yet questioning Hitler as Christian seems to be one.

Was it a little knee-jerkish? I suppose,
maybe.

Isn't "a little knee-jerkish" a little "contrary to logic
and evidence"?

A big deal? Hardly.

Is it a big deal when I respond to your posts but not
a big deal when you respond to mine?
[...]

Perhaps it was your debate style that caused the

confusion.

Perhaps, but why do you assume as much

I was unaware that a suggestion couched with a "perhaps" was an assumption.

You assumed "perhaps it was" _instead of_ considering
my proposition.

instead of
considering my proposition? Because it just can't be
true?

Remember that I wasn't the one who called you a fundie without "considering
your proposition".

Where did I say you were?

But I am saying I can see how someone might do that in
a.a., since it's been done to death here. Do you get that?

Yes, I get that. If it was just "someone" that would
be one thing.

Well, that wouldn't be very smart.

Questioning the dogma wouldn't be very smart? Because you
might get cal led a fundy if you even pretend to dispute it?

Since it is extremely well established that Hitler was a christian,

Excuse me, but if you venture outside of a.a. you will
find it quite a bit less than "extremely well established"
that Hitler was a Christian. Can you point to any of
the major tomes on Hitler or Nazi Germany who claim
this "as extremely well established"? Maybe you can,
but I've never seen it and I've done a bit of reading on
Hitler and nazi Germany.
unless

you have some sort of groundbreaking historical scholarship to share it
wouldn't be a smart claim to make in a.a. unles s you're just looking to get
flamed.

By doubting Hitler was a Christian. That's just
something you recommend one keep his mouth shut about.
Not that its dogma. It's just something that if you question
you will be attacked. Completely different things.

After all, Hitler was baptized, professed

his christianity, and was never excommunicated.

Not altogether true.

I'm pretty sure it is.

For instance there is more than
one way to be excommunicated in the Catholic Church.
You do not consider this.

I'm considering it, but I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise.

What would you expect to see if he was automatically
excommunicated?
If he committed offenses to which he would be subject to
automatic excommunication, he would be excommunicated,
would he not?

I'm not arguing the point
here. I'm showing you I CAN argue the point here.

Not well, you aren't.

Ergo, your certainty that there can be no argument against
the proposition, as a way of dismissing the proposition,
isn't valid.

Sure it is.

How so.

Especially since my only point is that you were flamed because
you brought up something that's been done to death here is all.

Well no, actually you've brought up other points. For
instance you said:
"It's a natural reaction around here to assume that someone who has
taken a
position contrary to logic and evidence is some variety of religious
fundamentalist"
This is only a natural reaction when the " position contrary
to logic and evidence" is one they don't agree with. The
natural reaction to atheists taking up positions contrary to
logic and evidence is to discount it and discourage any
discussion of it by calling it whining.

Therefore, the matter of his
religion was not a matter of opinion, but fact.

What you claim regards Hitler may be fact but the conclusion
you draw from it--that "Hitler = Christian"--is not. It is opinion.

If what I claim about Hitler is fact, the conclusion that he was christian
is the only possible one. Please. There is no "opinion" involved.

Really? How about the definition of "Christian"? You
don't think that is a matter of opinion? Please.

Claiming otherwise is the
kind of thing people in a.a. see religious fundies do quite a lot of,

Yes I know. But that isn't a good reason for atheists to go
into auto knee-jerk mode: "you say this therefore you must
be that."

A good reason? Yeah, I'd say that bringing up a poor old arg ument in a
usenet group actually is a really good reason to go into knee jerk mode.

Which argument would that be? You can't be talking about me.
As I said from the begining, all I did was disagree. No one wanted
to hear any argument.

You
were improperly lumped in with some group you're not part of,

And isn't the the antithesis of the idea that all that atheists have
in common is their lack of belief in you know what? Clearly
these people thought there was some other factor that excluded
me from being an atheist.

but this isn't debate club, it's usenet.

Ah. You say "I assume that 'atheist dogma' can only refer to
positions supported by reason, evidence, and logic, of course."
But when they don't meet this atheist standard it is because
"this isn't debate club, it's usenet." I see. As I said "I personally
think we--atheists-- should have much higher standards than they
do. What do we have going for us if we don't hold the rational
or ethical high ground?" I take it you disagree with this.
We'll just have to disagree then.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	07 Jul 2005 06:55:40 PM

[jfacts@earthlink.net]"Excuse me, but if you venture outside of a.a.
you will
find it quite a bit less than "extremely well established"
that Hitler was a Christian."
Hitler opposed Christianity
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/47c284defb4765dd?
Goebbels & Hitler agree on "the insanity of the Christian doctrine of
redemption"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/02471e07781c7e66?
Dawkins & Hitler observation re: conflicting religions
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/939d21b69b475095?
Hitler encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/e9b71ae73bcf99a3?
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate; Hitler was a
homosexual
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/9024224bd3d87aec?
a spiritual void among especially-influential Germans
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/3b06bb633ef68ea1?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	08 Jul 2005 12:05:46 AM

Note: The dishonest Mr. ford will cite his own posts as if
they were evidence, or more than his assertions. For instance,
he links one of his posts that is self titled "Hitler encounters
the T0E: A Victory for Atheism" Go to that post and the only
mention of atheism is ford who merely says "What can we do
to help ensure numerous similar successes for the cause of
atheism? "
david ford wrote:
....nothing of value.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	08 Jul 2005 02:54:26 AM

wrote:

Is there anything "of value" here?:
Goebbels & Hitler agree on "the insanity of the Christian doctrine of
redemption"
Goebbels, Joseph. 1948. _The Goebbels Diaries: 1942-1943_, edited,
translated, and with an introduction by Louis P. Lochner (NY:
Doubleday & Company, Inc.), 566pp. Brackets and elisions aren't mine;
on 374-5, from the entry for 12 May 1943:
At noon I went to see the Fuehrer.
The Fuehrer has received a letter from Cardinal Bertram in which the
latter complained bitterly about the alleged suppression of the
churches. The Fuehrer intends to reply to this letter and to inform
Bertram that a large number of the Catholic clergy were assuming so
treasonable an attitude toward the war that the Cardinal had better
look after these matters, rather than gripe about conditions that the
Fuehrer, too, regrets and that he is constantly trying to remedy.
I took the position in talking with the Fuehrer that the old cardinals
of the type of Faulhaber and Bertram are much less dangerous than the
young reverends who are serving at the front as army chaplains and even
wear the Iron Cross of the First Class. These give us much more
trouble, for they rate high with the people. They are the fighting
type and know how to talk with their war experience as background. The
Fuehrer agreed with me. We must be somewhat on our guard about such
clerics.
[Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Munich was
internationally famed for his outspoken opposition to the
Nazi regime. Many of his boldest sermons were
circulated secretly. Several attempts on his life were
made by Nazi rowdies. Cardinal Adolf Bertram of
Breslau was the senior cardinal in Germany, and, as such,
the presiding officer of the annual Fulda Bishops'
Conference which, during the Nazi regime, issued
pastoral letters that had to be taken to the individual
parishes secretly for reading to the congregations.]
The churches have always played a dubious role during wars, at least
with us. They won't tolerate a leader going his own way, especially if
he has a private point of view on religious matters. The Fuehrer
characterized it as nothing short of absurd that Frederick the Great,
for instance, was buried under the cupola of the Potsdam Garrison
Church, contrary to his wish to be interred beside his dogs in the park
of Sans Souci. Thank God, English air raids have compelled us to end
this condition. The coffin of Frederick the Great has been placed
where it is safe from bombs. The Fuehrer will never restore it to the
Potsdam Garrison Church. Either an imposing mausoleum in Greek style
is to be built for Frederick the Great in the park of Sans Souci, or he
is to be laid to rest in the great Soldiers' Hall of a new War Ministry
yet to be constructed. Personally I should prefer that the wish of the
great king be fulfilled and that he be given his last resting place in
Sans Souci. The Fuehrer, too, rather inclines to this view. But these
are problems that we shall have to face only on the morrow.
The Fuehrer spoke very derogatorily about the arrogance of the higher
and lower clergy. The insanity of the Christian doctrine of redemption
really doesn't fit at all into our time. Nevertheless there are
learned, educated men, occupying high positions in public life, who
cling to it with the faith of a child. It is simply incomprehensible
how anybody can consider the Christian doctrine of redemption as a
guide for the difficult life of today. The Fuehrer cited a number of
exceptionally drastic and in part even grotesque examples. The
opinionated "sky pilots" of course know exactly how the world is
constituted. Whereas the most learned and wisest scientists struggle
for a whole lifetime to study but one of the mysterious laws of nature,
a little country priest from Bavaria is in a position to decide this
matter on the basis of his religious knowledge. One can regard such a
disgusting performance only with disdain. A church that does not keep
step with modern scientific knowledge is doomed. It may take quite a
while, but it is bound finally to happen. Anybody who is firmly rooted
in daily life, and who can only faintly imagine the mystic secrets of
nature, will naturally be extremely modest about the universe. The
clerics, however, who have not caught a breath of such modesty,
evidence a sovereign opinionated attitude toward questions of the
universe....
The Fuehrer showed that he had read about and studied all these
problems. There is hardly a fact, hardly a theory, hardly a date, that
he doesn't know and that he isn't able to cite from memory. I have the
greatest respect for the Fuehrer's tremendous intellectual achievement
in all fields of knowledge. It is a pity that such talks can't be made
known to a lot of people. Their veneration for the Fuehrer could only
be increased thereby.
The Fuehrer is an enthusiastic advocate of pure science.... It was a
great mistake that we failed to win science over to support the new
state. That men such as Planck are reserved, to put it mildly, in
their attitude toward us, is the fault of Rust and is irremediable. It
makes one sad to think that the Fuehrer is so tremendously interested
in the tasks and researches of science, and yet our research men and
scientists do not realize this because they don't know it. The
mediocre talents in the Reich Government are a wall between the Fuehrer
and many sec-tors of public life. That is true of science, it is true
of administration, it is true of justice, and of many other things.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hitler opposed Christianity
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/47c284defb4765dd?
Hitler encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/e9b71ae73bcf99a3?
Dawkins & Hitler observation re: conflicting religions
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/939d21b69b475095?
"[Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Munich was internationally famed
for his outspoken opposition to the Nazi regime. ....Cardinal Adolf
Bertram"
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	08 Jul 2005 06:13:15 AM

david ford wrote:

jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:

Is there anything "of value" here?:

Nothing, except as a way of testing ones ability to
spot your probably dishonest editing, such as:

The Fuehrer is an enthusiastic advocate of pure science.... It was a
great mistake that we failed to win science over to support the new
state.

You go on for paragraph after irrelevant paragraph, but
when it begins to mention something about Hitler's
attitude toward science, you strike off the text, apparently
in mid-sentence. I note also that Hitler won over the
churches but not science....
Ó
.

User: "josephus"
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	08 Jul 2005 11:20:18 AM

david ford wrote:

[jfacts@earthlink.net]"Excuse me, but if you venture outside of a.a.
you will
find it quite a bit less than "extremely well established"
that Hitler was a Christian."

Hitler opposed Christianity
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/47c284defb4765dd?

Goebbels & Hitler agree on "the insanity of the Christian doctrine of
redemption"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/02471e07781c7e66?

Dawkins & Hitler observation re: conflicting religions
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/939d21b69b475095?

Hitler encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/e9b71ae73bcf99a3?

Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate; Hitler was a
homosexual
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/9024224bd3d87aec?
a spiritual void among especially-influential Germans
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/3b06bb633ef68ea1?

David you never say anything yourself. Quotemining is tiresome. there
is inherent deception in it. It only shows that you are lying about the
subject.
josephus
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	05 Jul 2005 06:30:04 PM

Mark Stahl wrote:

<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1120041563.365495.50980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Mark Stahl wrote:

<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1119883009.377630.46530@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

[...]

Isn't it odd that when the scientists produce a microwave oven or put
man
on
the moon, the scientists are considered "brilliant," but once they
challenge
the "veracity of scripture," they haven't the foggie st notion about
what
they're talking about?

Did you know that all you need to do to be labeled a fundy is
to disagree with any prevailing atheist dogma in a.a.?

It's a natural reaction around here to assume that someone who has taken a
position contrary to logic and evidence is some variety of religious
fundamentalist,

I think you validate my point.

I am explaining why I think something that was slightly unfortunate happened
to you.

And I am pointing out that you focus on me instead of
what I say, which is contrary to logic.

You seem, to me, to have utterly blown it out of proportion.

If you say so. Does that mean I am wrong, logically
speaking?

Here you assume that
questioning "Hitler was a Christian" is "contrary to logic
and evidence" without ever seeing what the argument against
is.

Really! To doubt the proposition that Hitler was a Christian
is comparable to saying the moon landings were hoaxes?
But it isn't dogma, though, right?

If you
actually have (had) something new, I'm sure you deserved an apology.

How about this. According to William Shirer, Hitler intended
to destroy Christianity in Germany:
"...under the
leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were
backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually
to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and
substitute the old paganism of the early tribal
Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi
extremists. As Bormann, one of the men closest to
Hitler, said publicly in 1941, 'National Socialism and
Christianityare irreconcilable.'"
"What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was
clearly set out in the thirty-point program for the
National Reich Church' drawn up during the war by
[Alfred] Rosenberg, an outspoken pagan, who, among his
other offices held that of 'the Fuehrer's Delegate for
the Entire Intellectual and Philosophical Education and
Instruction for the National Socialist Party" A few of
its thirty articles convey the essentials:
1. The National Reich Church of Germany categorically
claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to
control all churches within the borders of the Reich:
it declares these to be national churches of the German
Reich.
5. To exterminate irrevocably .... the strange and
foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany
in the ill omened year 800
7. The National Church has no scribes, pastors,
chaplains, or priests but National Reich orators are to
speak to them
13. The National Reich Church demands immediate
cessation of the publishing and dissemination of
the Bible in Germany
....
14. The National Reich Church declares that to
it, and therefore to the German nation, it has
been decided that the Fuehrer's Mein Kampf is
the greatest of all documents...
18. The National Church will clear away from its altars
all crucifixes, bibles, and pictures of saints.
19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf
(to the German nation and therefore to God the most
sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.
30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian cross
must be removed from all churches, cathedral, and
chapels and must be superseded by the only
unconquerable symbol, the swastika"
-- Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third
Reich. New York: Touchstone, 1959. p. 240
"During the next years thousands of Catholic priests,
nuns, and lay leaders were arrested, many of them on
trumped-up charges of 'immorality' or of 'smuggling
foreign currency.' Erich Klausener, leader of Catholic
Action, was, as we have seen, murdered in the June 30,
1934 purge. Scores of Catholic publications were
suppressed, and even the sanctity of the confessional
was violated by Gestapo agents.' On March 14, 1937
the Pope issued an encyclical, 'With Burning Sorrow.'
In it he blasted the Nazi regime charging it with
'evasion' and 'violation' of the concordat. The Nazis,
he said, spread 'the tares of suspicion, discord,
hatred, calumny, of secret and fundamental hostility to
Christ and His Church.' The Pope said he saw on 'the
horizon of Germany the threatening storm clouds of
destructive religious wars ... which have no other aim
than ... of extermination.'"
Ibid. p.235
Nazi Minister for Church affairs, Dr. Hans Kerrl, said
on 2/13/37:
"The party stands on the basis of Positive
Christianity, and Positive Christianity IS National
Socialism ...National Socialism is the doing of God's
will. Dr. Zoellner and Count Galen [Catholic bishop of
Muenster] have tried to make clear to me that
Christianity consists in faith in Christ as the Son of
God. That makes me laugh... No, Christianity is not
dependent upon the Apostle's Creed ... True
Christianity is represented by the party, and the
German people are now called by the party and
especially by the Fuehrer to a real Christianity ...
The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation."
-- Ibid p. 239
But I

doubt that's the case, still, so why are you still whining about it?

At the moment I am responding to your "whining" about it.
Albert Speer:
"In Bormann's mind, the Kirchenkampf, the campaign
against the churches, was useful for reactivating party
ideology which had been lying dormant. He was the
driving force behind the campaign, as was time and
again made plain to our round table. Hitler was
hesitant, but only because he would rather postpone
this problem to a more favorable time. Here in Berlin,
surrounded by male cohorts, he spoke more coarsely
and bluntly than he ever did in the midst of his
Obersalzberg entourage. 'Once I have settled my other
problems,' he occasionally declared, 'I'll have my
reckoning with the church. I'll have it reeling on
the ropes.'" -- Speer, Albert. Inside the Third Reich.
New York: Macmillian Publishing Co., Inc, 1970.
p. 123

This is dismissal before examination. It's what fundies do.

Hardly. It's been examined and found lacking many, many times.

Well I'm not making the claim here. I'm not saying
that Hitler wasn't a Christian. I'm saying I doubt it.
I used to believe it, now I doubt it. My reasons for
doubting it is because I don't think you can be a
Christian and outlaw the Bible--or have the intention
of doing so, or intend to destroy Christianity. That
would seem to be unChristian, on purely a pragmatic
level.
Contd.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	06 Jul 2005 07:07:55 PM

Mark Stahl wrote:

jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:

Mark Stahl wrote:

jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:

Isn't it odd that when the scientists produce a microwave
oven or put man on the moon, the scientists are considered
"brilliant," but once they challenge the "veracity of
scripture," they haven't the foggie st notion about what
they're talking about?

Did you know that all you need to do to be labeled a fundy is
to disagree with any prevailing atheist dogma in a.a.?

It's a natural reaction around here to assume that someone who
has taken a position contrary to logic and evidence is some
variety of religious fundamentalist,

I think you validate my point.

I am explaining why I think something that was slightly
unfortunate happened to you. You seem, to me, to have utterly
blown it out of proportion.

Here you assume that questioning "Hitler was a Christian" is
"contrary to logic and evidence" without ever seeing what the
argument against is.

Hardly. This argument has been had dozens, if not hundreds, of
times in this newsgroup. You may as well have posted that the
moon landings were hoaxes or something, for all the genuine
expectation of a new argument is. If you actually have (had)
something new, I'm sure you deserved an apology. But I doubt
that's the case, still, so why are you still whining about it?

Anybody who takes a moment to read the thread here:
http://tinyurl.com/c69f2
and then re-read all of Mark's post should have no trouble
figuring out that the reason that Del is so eager to argue that
Hitler isn't really a Christian is that, just as he's ashamed to
be associated with bad-assed atheists like me, he's also ashamed
to be associated with evil Christians like Hitler.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	06 Jul 2005 10:39:10 PM

wrote:

Mark Stahl wrote:

jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:

Mark Stahl wrote:

jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:

Isn't it odd that when the scientists produce a microwave
oven or put man on the moon, the scientists are considered
"brilliant," but once they challenge the "veracity of
scripture," they haven't the foggie st notion about what
they're talking about?

Did you know that all you need to do to be labeled a fundy is
to disagree with any prevailing atheist dogma in a.a.?

It's a natural reaction around here to assume that someone who
has taken a position contrary to logic and evidence is some
variety of religious fundamentalist,

I think you validate my point.

I am explaining why I think something that was slightly
unfortunate happened to you. You seem, to me, to have utterly
blown it out of proportion.

Here you assume that questioning "Hitler was a Christian" is
"contrary to logic and evidence" without ever seeing what the
argument against is.

Hardly. This argument has been had dozens, if not hundreds, of
times in this newsgroup. You may as well have posted that the
moon landings were hoaxes or something, for all the genuine
expectation of a new argument is. If you actually have (had)
something new, I'm sure you deserved an apology. But I doubt
that's the case, still, so why are you still whining about it?

Only if "bad assed" = stoopid, as you so masterly
demonstrate with this obtuse ad hominem fallacy of
yours. You know, if you spent half the time dealing
with your faulty reasoning techniques as you do on
damage control and spin doctoring you wouldn't be nearly
so ineffectual.

he's also ashamed
to be associated with evil Christians like Hitler.

In contrast, stealth fundy Ben loves to be associated with
evil Christians like Hitler. He identifies with Hitler and can't
understand why everyone doesn't. Ask him how you can sign
up for his holocaust denier listserv .
.

User: "Ben Goren"
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	29 Jun 2005 04:40:42 PM

wrote:

I think you validate my point. Here you assume that questioning
"Hitler was a Christian" is "contrary to logic and evidence"
without ever seeing what the argument against is. This is
dismissal before examination. It's what fundies do. Is that
standard good enough for you? It ain't for me.

When somebody makes outrageous claims that have been thorougly
debunked--such as ``the Earth is flat'' or ``the Moon landing was
faked'' or ``Hitler was an atheist''--one is perfectly justified
in disissal before examination. Without such a standard, you
couldn't get out of bed before experimentally verifying Newton's
laws.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	30 Jun 2005 01:34:16 PM

Ben Goren wrote:

jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:

I think you validate my point. Here you assume that questioning
"Hitler was a Christian" is "contrary to logic and evidence"
without ever seeing what the argument against is. Th is is
dismissal before examination. It's what fundies do. Is that
standard good enough for you? It ain't for me.

What does this have to do with what I said?
.

User: "Mark Stahl"
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	03 Jul 2005 05:44:26 PM

<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1120138456.845017.303080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Ben Goren wrote:

jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:

I think you validate my point. Here you assume that questioning
"Hitler was a Christian" is "contrary to logic and evidence"
without ever seeing what the argument against is. Th is is
dismissal before examination. It's what fundies do. Is that
standard good enough for you? It ain't for me.

What does this have to do with what I said?

Pretty much everything.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	05 Jul 2005 03:16:06 PM

Mark Stahl wrote:

<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1120138456.845017.303080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Ben Goren wrote:

jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:

I think you validate my point. Here you assume that questioning
"Hitler was a Christian" is "contrary to logic and evidence"
without ever seeing what the argument against is. This is
dismissal before examination. It's what fundies do. Is that
standard good enough for you? It ain't for me.

What does this have to do with what I said?

Pretty much everything.

Really? Even though it doesn't address--or even
mention--anything I said? How so?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	05 Jul 2005 05:04:42 PM

Del wrote:

Mark Stahl wrote:

Del wrote:

Ben Goren wrote:

Del wrote:

I think you validate my point. Here you assume that
questioning "Hitler was a Christian" is "contrary to logic
and evidence" without ever seeing what the argument against
is. This is dismissal before examination. It's what fundies
do. Is that standard good enough for you? It ain't for me.

What does this have to do with what I said?

Pretty much everything.

Really? Even though it doesn't address--or even
mention--anything I said? How so?

Really, my fun Del *****. Even a doggie of your limited
intellctual capacity should be able to figure out this one.
Then again, seeing how you're perfectly comfortable blindly
trusting outrageous claims, yourself--such as ``God is
unknowable''--maybe you're not.
Here, try this one on for size: Jesus loves you for the
Bible tells you so. Not gonna see what the argument is? Gonna
dismiss that before examination? Is that standard good enough for
you? Because, you know, Jesus really does love /you./ Just ask
him! He's still there. You may think you left him, but he's still
by your side.
Keep rolling, little doggie--you're almost there!
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	06 Jul 2005 03:58:39 PM

wrote:

Del wrote:

Mark Stahl wrote:

Del wrote:

Ben Goren wrote:

Del wrote:

I think you validate my point. Here you assume that
questioning "Hitler was a Christian" is "con trary to logic
and evidence" without ever seeing what the argument against
is. This is dismissal before examination. It's what fundies
do. Is that standard good enough for you? It ain't for me.

What does this have to do with what I said?

Pretty much everything.

Really? Even though it doesn't address--or even
mention--anything I said? How so?

Really, my fun Del *****. Even a doggie of your limit ed
intellctual capacity should be able to figure out this one.

You couldn't possibly mean your pathetic attempt at implying I
said Hitler was an atheist (or maybe your creative "logic" tells
you that anyone who isn't a Christian is an atheist)? I try not
to overestimate your intelligence, I really do. And yet I keep
doing it. Damn.
Keep stonewalling. It makes you look intelligent.

Then again, seeing how you're perfectly comfortable blindly
trusting outrageous claims, yourself--such as ``God is
unknowable''--maybe you're not.

As usual you handle the truth with great economy. "To
know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice."
- Confucius

Here, try this one on for size: Jesus loves you for the
Bible tells you so. Not gonna see what the argument is? Gonna
dismiss that before examination? Is that standard good enough for
you? Because, you know, Jesus really does love /you./ Just ask
him! He's still there. You may think you left him, but he's still
by your side.

Run little bunny. I guess being a good loser requires
more than lots of experience.
.

User: "maf 1029"
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	29 Jun 2005 10:01:13 PM

On 29 Jun 2005 03:39:23 -0700,

wrote:

Here you assume that
questioning "Hitler was a Christian" is "contrary to logic
and evidence" without ever seeing what the argument against
is.

Pro: Hitler was a Christian because he was baptized, communioned, and
confirmed as a Roman Catholic in a small church in Graz, Austria.
Roman Catholicism is a flavor of Christianity. He claimed to be an
agent of God in his own autobiography. The Catholic church never
kicked him out or denounced him.
Con: "Nuh-uhn, Hitler wasn't a true Christian <begin bagpipe music>
because he killed people and was a bad man."
Refutation: Plenty of Christians, such as the Bishop of Rouen, killed
people and were bad men.
Idiot response: Who?
Thinking person response: The Bishop of Rouen, France. He was the guy
who ordered the torture, rape, and execution of Joan of Arc. Please
learn even a bit of the history of your cult before you embarrass
yourself further. Thank you.
.

User: "AC"
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	30 Jun 2005 06:51:45 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:01:13 -0700,
maf 1029 <kl@mn.qr> wrote:

On 29 Jun 2005 03:39:23 -0700,

wrote:

Here you assume that
questioning "Hitler was a Christian" is "contrary to logic
and evidence" without ever seeing what the argument against
is.

Pro: Hitler was a Christian because he was baptized, communioned, and
confirmed as a Roman Catholic in a small church in Graz, Austria.
Roman Catholicism is a flavor of Christianity. He claimed to be an
agent of God in his own autobiography. The Catholic church never
kicked him out or denounced him.

Con: "Nuh-uhn, Hitler wasn't a true Christian <begin bagpipe music>
because he killed people and was a bad man."

Refutation: Plenty of Christians, such as the Bishop of Rouen, killed
people and were bad men.

Idiot response: Who?

Thinking person response: The Bishop of Rouen, France. He was the guy
who ordered the torture, rape, and execution of Joan of Arc. Please
learn even a bit of the history of your cult before you embarrass
yourself further. Thank you.

I'm perfectly willing to concede the point that Hitler wasn't a Christian.
I won't even argue it, because it wasn't Hitler or his cronies who did the
actual killing, it was all those Protestant and Catholic bureaucrats and
soldiers who did the actual dirty work. So, hey, Hitler wasn't a real
Christian, but what about the guards at the concentration camps? What about
the guy that serviced the ovens and the poison gas delivery systems? At
what point do you just decide that a huge chunk of Germany between about
1938 and 1945 was not Christian? And do you draw the line there? What
about the centuries of anti-semitism that dominated Christian Europe?
Is there actually such a thing as a Christian at all?
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.

User: "Greywolf"
Title: Re: Commentary: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design	30 Jun 2005 11:24:10 PM

"AC" <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrndc8fqn.o8c.mightymartianca@the.spanish.inquisition...

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:01:13 -0700,
maf 1029 <kl@mn.qr> wrote:

On 29 Jun 2005 03:39:23 -0700,

wrote:

Here you assume that
questioning "Hitler was a Christian" is "contrary to logic
and evidence" without ever seeing what the argument against
is.

Pro: Hitler was a Christian because he was baptized, communioned, and
confirmed as a Roman Catholic in a small church in Graz, Austria.
Roman Catholicism is a flavor of Christianity. He claimed to be an
agent of God in his own autobiography. The Catholic church never
kicked him out or denounced him.

Con: "Nuh-uhn, Hitler wasn't a true Christian <begin bagpipe music>
because he killed people and was a bad man."

Refutation: Plenty of Christians, such as the Bishop of Rouen, killed
people and were bad men.

Idiot response: Who?

Thinking person response: The Bishop of Rouen, France. He was the guy
who ordered the torture, rape, and execution of Joan of Arc. Please
learn even a bit of the history of your cult before you embarrass
yourself further. Thank you.

I'm perfectly willing to concede the point that Hitler wasn't a Christian.
I won't even argue it, because it wasn't Hitler or his cronies who did the
actual killing, it was all those Protestant and Catholic bureaucrats and
soldiers who did the actual dirty work. So, hey, Hitler wasn't a real
Christian, but what about the guards at the concentration camps? What
about
the guy that serviced the ovens and the poison gas delivery systems? At
what point do you just decide that a huge chunk of Germany between about
1938 and 1945 was not Christian? And do you draw the line there? What
about the centuries of anti-semitism that dominated Christian Europe?

Is there actually such a thing as a Christian at all?

--