| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
29 Jul 2007 12:53:13 AM |
| Object: |
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
http://www.sedin.org/propeng/defeat1.htm
Phillip E. Johnson
Excerpts from Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
If somebody asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is
not "Yes" or "No." It is: "Precisely what do you mean by evolution?"
That one word evolution can mean something so tiny it hardly matters,
or so big it explains the whole history of the universe. (Ch. 3:
Turning Up Your Baloney Detector, pp. 44-45)
EDUCATION
An Education in Evolution Young people need to take advantage of the
wonderful educational opportunities our society offers, but they also
need to protect themselves from the indoctrination in naturalism that
so often accompanies education. Textbooks and other educational
materials today take evolutionary naturalism for granted, and thus
assume the wrong answer to the most important question we face: Is
there a God who created us and cares about what we do? Young people
need to be prepared for the indoctrination, and for that they need to
know some things that the public schools aren't allowed to teach them.
(Introduction, p. 10)
If high-schoolers need a good high-school education in how to think
about evolution, professors and senior scientists seem to need it just
as badly. That's what this book aims to give_a good high-school
education in how to think about evolution. It's for high-schoolers,
college students, parents, teachers, youth workers, pastors and also
scientists whose education didn't encourage them to take a skeptical
look at the claims of Darwinian theory. (Introduction, p. 11)
Developing Good Thinking Habits
Understanding evolution is mainly a matter of opening minds, of
freeing people to think about it as they would other important
subjects. All it really takes is precise definitions and good thinking
habits. The skills you'll develop in learning to understand evolution
will come in handy for a lot of other things too. Actually, you'll
find out that they are the same skills that scientists like Carl Sagan
have advocated all along. It's just that we are going to apply those
skills to evolution, a subject that has for too long been protected
from critical thinking by law and academic custom. (Introduction, p.
12)
Educational Censorship
It's an absurd situation, isn't it? Educators aren't allowed to
address the issues about which their students, and the general public,
are most concerned. When teachers challenge students to think about
how their worldviews affect their understanding of the creation-
evolution controversy, so-called civil liberties lawyers censor the
teaching by threatening to bring a lawsuit that the school district
can't afford to defend. (Ch. 3: Turning Up Your Baloney Detector, pp.
52)
The predictable result of this one-sided educational and legal regime
is that evolution has become the focus of a culture war instead of a
subject that can be discussed constructively in educational
institutions or in the political realm of negotiation and compromise.
The science educators teach the students that they were created by
evolution and that evolution is a purposeless and unsupervised natural
process. Of course those statements go far beyond the scientific
evidence and state a religious position, but educators also insist
with a straight face that they are not saying anything about religion
or God. If they were addressing the subject of religion, they would
have to allow the other side to be argued. Therefore they must not be
addressing it. (Ch. 4: A Real Education in Evolution, p. 54)
SCIENCE
The Official Statement on What Biology Teachers Believe
The 1995 official position statement of the American National
Association of Biology Teachers (hereafter NABT) accurately states the
general understanding of major science organizations and educators:
"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an
unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of
temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural
selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing
environments." Or, in the words of the famous evolutionist George
Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural
process that did not have him in mind." (Ch. 1: Emilio's Letter, p.
15)
The "Evolution" of Corvettes
Here is [zoology professor Tim] Berra's explanation of "evolution,
which comes illustrated with photographs of automobiles in the middle
of the book:
Everything evolves, in the sense of "descent with modification,"
whether it be government policy, religion, sports cars or organisms.
The revolutionary fiberglass Corvette evolved from more mundane
automotive ancestors in 1953. Other high points in the Corvette's
evolutionary refinement included the 1962 model, in which the original
102-inch was shortened to 98 inches and the new closed-coupe Stingray
model was introduced; the 1968 model, the forerunner of today's
Corvette morphology, which emerged with removable roof panels; and the
1978 silver anniversary model, with fastback styling. Today's version
continues the stepwise refinements that have been accumulating since
1953. The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection
process acting on variations that resulted in a series of transitional
forms and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A
similar process shapes the evolution of organisms.
Of course, every one of those Corvettes was designed by engineers. The
Corvette sequence_like the sequence of Beethoven's symphonies or the
opinions of the United States Supreme Court_does not illustrate
naturalistic evolution at all--. It illustrates how intelligent
designers will typically achieve their purposes by adding variations
to a basic design plan. Above all, such sequences have no tendency
whatever to support the claim that there is no need for a Creator,
since blind natural forces can do the creating. On the contrary, they
show that what biologists present as proof of "evolution" or "common
ancestry" is just as likely to be evidence of common design. (Ch. 4: A
Real Education in Evolution, pp. 62-63)
Natural Selection
Computer selection, like automobile design, illustrates intelligent
planning (authorship), not chance or survival of the fittest. It is
just as if an author were writing the target phrase, except that the
author has to wait a bit for the right letters to appear in the right
spaces. The first letters to appear are meaningless, and the computer
knows which ones to select only because it has the target text in its
memory.
Natural selection, on the other hand, is supposed to be mindless and
hence incapable of pursuing a distant goal. If natural selection could
preserve a presently meaningless mutation because it might become
useful later on when other new mutations occur, this would imply that
evolution is a purposeful process, supervised by a preexisting mind.
As we have seen, supervised evolution is a gradualist version of
creationism. As materialists use the term, it is not evolution at all.
(Ch. 5: Intelligent Design, pp. 74-75)
Irreducibly Complex Black Boxes
Molecular mechanisms are irreducibly complex. What this means is
simply that they are made up of many parts that interact in complex
ways, and all the parts need to work together. Any single part has no
useful function unless all the other parts are also present. There is
therefore no pathway of functional intermediate stages by which a
Darwinian process could build such a system step by step.
Molecular mechanisms, Behe says, are as obviously designed as a
spaceship or a computer. You can't explain the origin of any
biological capability (like vision) unless you can explain the origin
of the molecular mechanisms that make it work. Evolutionary biologists
have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems
originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that
biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they
know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific
explanation. (Ch. 5: Intelligent Design, p. 77)
The Big Three: First Marx and Freud . . .
Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as
preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were
regarded as "scientific" (and hence far more reliable than anything
"religious") in their heyday. Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even
their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights
were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of
experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block.
His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three.
Darwinism in the West is in much the same condition as was Soviet
Marxism in its last days. Its power and prestige rest not on any real
scientific accomplishments but on the theory's role in upholding the
ruling philosophy. (Ch. 8: Stepping off the Reservation, p. 113)
RELIGION
Why Evolution Can't Be Theistic
The Darwinian theory doesn't just say that God created slowly. It says
that naturalistic evolution is the creator, and God had nothing to do
with it. (Ch. 1: Emilio's Letter, p. 16)
The important question is not whether God "exists"; it is whether God
cares about us, and whether we need to care about God's purposes.
Deism answers no to these questions. For that reason even George
Gaylord Simpson found deism to be perfectly consistent with his
Darwinian doctrine that our true creator is a purposeless material
system. (Ch. 1: Emilio's Letter, p. 17)
It Goes Both Ways
Every scientific materialist who reads this will understandably want
to ask: "Are you willing to apply baloney detecting to religion, as
well as science? The answer is (emphatically) yes! I can't think of a
better way to introduce students to Christianity than to invite them
to read the Gospels with care and to ask all the tough
questions. . . . Dealing with the tough questions is a lifelong
business, and the most important educational point is not to try to
spoonfeed students with oversimplified answers that won't stand the
tests of time and experience. (Ch. 4: A Real Education in Evolution,
p. 65)
Faith
Faith is not something some people have and others don't. Faith also
isn't something opposed to reason. Faith is something that everybody
needs to get started in any direction, and to keep going in the face
of discouragement. Reason builds on a foundation of faith. (Ch. 4: A
Real Education in Evolution, p. 66)
A faith that has to be protected behind walls is like a house built on
sand. When the protection ceases, the faith collapses. Faith is
confirmed by testing and validated by struggle in a world that gives a
multitude of reasons for doubt. (Ch. 6: The Wedge, p. 91)
What the Pope Actually Said
Far from endorsing the materialist understanding of evolution that
dominates contemporary science, the pope pronounced that "theories of
evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them,
consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as
a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth
about man." (Ch. 6: The Wedge, p. 85)
How We Think about God
As students grow more and more accustomed to assuming materialism and
naturalism in their academic work, the concept of creation by God
gradually tends to become less real to them. It is not so much that
any single finding undermines their faith; rather, the day-to-day
practice of thinking in naturalistic terms about academic subjects
makes it awkward to think differently when it comes to religion. (Ch.
6: The Wedge, p. 88)
When people are taught for years on end that good thinking is
naturalistic thinking, and that bringing God into the picture only
leads to confusion and error, they have to be pretty dense not to get
the point that God must be an illusion. This doesn't necessarily mean
that they become atheists, but they are likely to think about God in a
naturalistic way, as an idea in the human mind rather than as a
reality that nobody can afford to ignore. (Ch. 6: The Wedge, p. 88-89)
CULTURE
Propaganda
The play [Inherit the Wind] is a fictionalized account of the "Scopes
Trial" of 1925 . . . Inherit the Wind is a masterpiece of propaganda,
promoting a stereotype of the public debate about creation and
evolution that gives all virtue and intelligence to the Darwinists.
(Ch. 2: Inherit the Wind, p. 25)
What are the Options?
The culture tells us that we have two alternatives. We can accept
"evolution" as the scientists understand the term, which means that we
accept naturalism and materialism (even if we pretend otherwise).
Alternatively, we can reject evolution_in which case Microphone Man
will stereotype us as premodern fundamentalists who insist on every
detail of Genesis regardless of the evidence. Should we fight, or
should we accommodate on the best terms we can get from the
materialists? (Ch. 6: The Wedge, pp. 86-87)
Tough Questions
If the materialist domination of the intellectual world is seriously
called into question, it will be possible for the next generation of
Christians to enter the universities as participants in the search for
truth, not as outsiders who have no choice but to submit to
materialist rules. Instead of retreating from the public world of
reason into the protected territory of faith, they will be pressing
the questions that need to be pressed. Here are just a few of them:
Why should the life of the mind exclude the possibility that a mind is
behind our existence? Why should we assume that modern materialist
philosophies are the wave of the future instead of a holdover from the
nineteenth century? If information is something fundamentally
different from matter, what is the ultimate source of the information?
Will science be harmed if it gives up its ambition to explain
everything, or has that ambition only harmed science by tempting
scientists to resort to unsound methods? If materialism is not an
adequate starting point for rationality, what alternatives are there?
(Ch. 8: Stepping off the Reservation, p. 115)
The Marketplace: A Lab for Ideas
Like it or not, our world is a marketplace for good and bad ideas just
as Athens was in Paul's day. The media and the Internet ensure that no
reservation is sealed off from those ideas. We can do our best to
prepare young people for what is coming, and to protect them for a
little while, but in the end they will have to go out into that
marketplace by themselves. (Ch. 8: Stepping off the Reservation, p.
117)
There is no guarantee that freedom of inquiry will generate the
answers we want_that's why we call it freedom! This bothers a lot of
people, who don't want to participate in a search for truth unless
they are assured in advance that the truth will be one they can
accept. (Ch. 8: Stepping off the Reservation, p. 117)
The Next Step
As long as the secular intellectual world is irrevocably committed to
materialism, then Christian doctrines like supernatural creation and
the resurrection are false by definition and can hardly survive
academic scrutiny. Conversely, if those doctrines are true, then
materialism, as a general worldview, isn't true. In that case the
rules of the secular academy are open to question, to put it mildly.
To step off the reservation to question the rules of the larger
society is to take a great risk, but perhaps also to find a great
opportunity. We will never know how great the opportunity was if we
are afraid to take the risk. (Ch. 8: Stepping off the Reservation, p.
118
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
29 Jul 2007 01:04:53 AM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1185688393.943347.135640@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
http://www.sedin.org/propeng/defeat1.htm
Phillip E. Johnson
Excerpts from Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
If somebody asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is
not "Yes" or "No." It is: "Precisely what do you mean by evolution?"
No. The proper answer is "Precisely what do you mean by believe?"
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fun Tyme" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
30 Jul 2007 09:28:24 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1185688393.943347.135640@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
http://www.sedin.org/propeng/defeat1.htm
Phillip E. Johnson
Excerpts from Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
If somebody asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is
not "Yes" or "No." It is: "Precisely what do you mean by evolution?"
No. The proper answer is "Precisely what do you mean by believe?"
I guessed this thread was going to detail the *mechanical* opening of
minds to extract the essence of intelligence usually achieved by the
preaching method.
Unfortunately, it's nothing novel or exciting at all.
Trumpeting is also described as "blowing it out of your arse" ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
29 Jul 2007 01:35:40 AM |
|
|
On Jul 29, 3:04 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote in messagenews:1185688393.943347.135640@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
http://www.sedin.org/propeng/defeat1.htm
Phillip E. Johnson
Excerpts from Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
If somebody asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is
not "Yes" or "No." It is: "Precisely what do you mean by evolution?"
No. The proper answer is "Precisely what do you mean by believe?"
--
Denis Loubet
dlou...@io.comhttp://www.io.com/~dloubethttp://www.ashenempires.com
Trumpet wants that question asked, about evolution, because he wants
people to believe there's a "missing link" (the man with a tail or the
man with a little willy but who could also ***** with his back to his
mate) and until that man is found, so their story goes, then evolution
remains a myth.
Fact is of course that man is a species of ape, there is no missing
link, just as there is no missing like between a snapper and a cod.
Man was not an ape and over-night became man, man is an ape always was
always will be, some more so than others eh Sean? but he's the ape
that just gets smarter and better than all other apes with each
generation.
Having said that, it is an obsersed fact, that the more like humans,
that humans treat animals, the more like animals humans become, we are
evolving back into the jungle.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
29 Jul 2007 09:47:39 AM |
|
|
I can't think of a
better way to introduce students to Christianity than to invite them
to read the Gospels with care and to ask all the tough
questions. . . .
OK, where did Jesus say "creationism is science" and "evolution is
religion?"
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
29 Jul 2007 10:09:41 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:47:39 -0700, Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com>
wrote:
I can't think of a
better way to introduce students to Christianity than to invite them
to read the Gospels with care and to ask all the tough
questions. . . .
OK, where did Jesus say "creationism is science" and "evolution is
religion?"
Or "why is Creationism so closely identified with the "Religious
Right", when Jesus himself was clearly a flaming Liberal?"
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
29 Jul 2007 06:09:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:09:41 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
<lbbpa3leb7bhanmlqg2fq9h6ksps6nf4s9@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:47:39 -0700, Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com>
wrote:
I can't think of a
better way to introduce students to Christianity than to invite them
to read the Gospels with care and to ask all the tough
questions. . . .
OK, where did Jesus say "creationism is science" and "evolution is
religion?"
Or "why is Creationism so closely identified with the "Religious
Right", when Jesus himself was clearly a flaming Liberal?"
Because the Religious Right has nothing to do with Jesus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
29 Jul 2007 08:24:05 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:cf7qa3lbp33re9sglpsu3cb313u34lq7n2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:09:41 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
<lbbpa3leb7bhanmlqg2fq9h6ksps6nf4s9@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:47:39 -0700, Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com>
wrote:
I can't think of a
better way to introduce students to Christianity than to invite them
to read the Gospels with care and to ask all the tough
questions. . . .
OK, where did Jesus say "creationism is science" and "evolution is
religion?"
Or "why is Creationism so closely identified with the "Religious
Right", when Jesus himself was clearly a flaming Liberal?"
Because the Religious Right has nothing to do with Jesus.
And everything to do with power and control over
people deliberately kept ignorant in the name of
faith.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
29 Jul 2007 06:51:30 PM |
|
|
BEWARE:
THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH.
Open minds can only CONFIRM evolution and Darwin's theory. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
30 Jul 2007 06:43:57 PM |
|
|
In article <1185688393.943347.135640@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
So you opened yours so far your brains fell out.
Phillip E. Johnson
LMAO! A lawyer who thinks he's an evolutionary biologist.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 10:27:28 AM |
|
|
On Jul 30, 7:43 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1185688393.943347.135...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
So you opened yours so far your brains fell out.
Phillip E. Johnson
LMAO! A lawyer who thinks he's an evolutionary biologist.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Yeah, had anyone ever noticed "open your mind" has changed over time.
It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions"
now it means "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions"
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 11:12:42 PM |
|
|
Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185982048.799015.91880@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 30, 7:43 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1185688393.943347.135...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
So you opened yours so far your brains fell out.
Phillip E. Johnson
LMAO! A lawyer who thinks he's an evolutionary biologist.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Yeah, had anyone ever noticed "open your mind" has changed over time.
It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions"
now it means "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions"
Hatter
Have you noticed that whilst claiming the Bible is literal and capable of
only one interpretation, how few of these crazymotherfuckers manage to come
up with the same interpretation?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 06:30:34 PM |
|
|
In article <1185982048.799015.91880@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:43 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1185688393.943347.135...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
So you opened yours so far your brains fell out.
Phillip E. Johnson
LMAO! A lawyer who thinks he's an evolutionary biologist.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Yeah, had anyone ever noticed "open your mind" has changed over time.
It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions"
now it means "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions"
LOL! How true. Dump science and believe in superstition.
Hatter
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: AQOTM Nomination: was-Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 02:09:27 PM |
|
|
On Aug 1, 11:27 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:43 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1185688393.943347.135...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
So you opened yours so far your brains fell out.
Phillip E. Johnson
LMAO! A lawyer who thinks he's an evolutionary biologist.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Nominated portion begins:
Yeah, had anyone ever noticed "open your mind" has changed over time.
It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions"
now it means "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions"
Nominated portion ends.
Call for seconds...
BTW: Thanks for my noms last month, guys! My g/f had a little MS
flareup this week, and I didn't see them until today.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Kaufmann" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM Nomination: was-Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 02:29:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Aug 1, 11:27 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:43 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1185688393.943347.135...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
So you opened yours so far your brains fell out.
Phillip E. Johnson
LMAO! A lawyer who thinks he's an evolutionary biologist.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Nominated portion begins:
Yeah, had anyone ever noticed "open your mind" has changed over time.
It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions"
now it means "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions"
Nominated portion ends.
Call for seconds...
Second!
BTW: Thanks for my noms last month, guys! My g/f had a little MS
flareup this week, and I didn't see them until today.
Best wishes to her Floyd.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM Nomination: was-Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
05 Aug 2007 08:02:32 AM |
|
|
Carl Kaufmann wrote:
panamfloyd@hotmail.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 11:27 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:43 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1185688393.943347.135...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
So you opened yours so far your brains fell out.
Phillip E. Johnson
LMAO! A lawyer who thinks he's an evolutionary biologist.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Nominated portion begins:
Yeah, had anyone ever noticed "open your mind" has changed over time.
It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions"
now it means "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions"
Nominated portion ends.
Call for seconds...
Second!
Recorded.
BTW: Thanks for my noms last month, guys! My g/f had a little MS
flareup this week, and I didn't see them until today.
Best wishes to her Floyd.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM Nomination: was-Re: Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 03:15:42 PM |
|
|
On Aug 1, 3:29 pm, Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufm...@cox.net> wrote:
panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 11:27 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:43 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1185688393.943347.135...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
So you opened yours so far your brains fell out.
Phillip E. Johnson
LMAO! A lawyer who thinks he's an evolutionary biologist.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Nominated portion begins:
Yeah, had anyone ever noticed "open your mind" has changed over time.
It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions"
now it means "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions"
Nominated portion ends.
Call for seconds...
Second!
BTW: Thanks for my noms last month, guys! My g/f had a little MS
flareup this week, and I didn't see them until today.
Best wishes to her Floyd.
Thanks. She's up and moving, but still a little uncoordinated. She
calls it a "drunk day" because she can walk, but not in a straight
line. To still be able to laugh at something like this...wow, what a
woman. I think I love her. <g>
-PF, Atl.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 02:01:29 PM |
|
|
On Aug 1, 11:27 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:43 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1185688393.943347.135...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
So you opened yours so far your brains fell out.
Phillip E. Johnson
LMAO! A lawyer who thinks he's an evolutionary biologist.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Yeah, had anyone ever noticed "open your mind" has changed over time.
It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions"
now it means "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions"
"Opening minds" on the part of Creationists is a temporary,
provisional attempt to forestall the debacle of their ideology,
but in the end it will accelerate it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 02:13:57 PM |
|
|
On Aug 1, 3:01 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 1, 11:27 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:43 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1185688393.943347.135...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
So you opened yours so far your brains fell out.
Phillip E. Johnson
LMAO! A lawyer who thinks he's an evolutionary biologist.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Yeah, had anyone ever noticed "open your mind" has changed over time.
It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions"
now it means "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions"
"Opening minds" on the part of Creationists is a temporary,
provisional attempt to forestall the debacle of their ideology,
but in the end it will accelerate it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
As to thiis shift, I didn't first notice amonst the judeo-christian
faith community but rather New agers. "Open your mind" was usually
followed by a strange amalgum of eastern philosophy and neo-pagan woo-
woo crap that I had had HAD to accept...or not be enlightened like
they are. It isn't the first time I've noticed the right slowly
incorporating memes from the left(most notably- the dialectic.)
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph K." |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 03:55:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:01:29 -0700, *Anarcissie*
<anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 1, 11:27 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:43 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1185688393.943347.135...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
So you opened yours so far your brains fell out.
Phillip E. Johnson
LMAO! A lawyer who thinks he's an evolutionary biologist.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Yeah, had anyone ever noticed "open your mind" has changed over time.
It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions"
now it means "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions"
"Opening minds" on the part of Creationists is a temporary,
provisional attempt to forestall the debacle of their ideology,
but in the end it will accelerate it.
Judging from historical evidence, 'opening minds' in religious
parlance is synonimous with 'breaking skulls', to let the Truth in, of
course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
01 Aug 2007 11:13:50 PM |
|
|
Joseph K. <nihil@none.com> wrote in message
news:hms1b3h5ujsulbg0sk8vujtbqr5qua53fr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:01:29 -0700, *Anarcissie*
<anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 1, 11:27 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:43 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1185688393.943347.135...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
So you opened yours so far your brains fell out.
Phillip E. Johnson
LMAO! A lawyer who thinks he's an evolutionary biologist.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to
be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Yeah, had anyone ever noticed "open your mind" has changed over time.
It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions"
now it means "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions"
"Opening minds" on the part of Creationists is a temporary,
provisional attempt to forestall the debacle of their ideology,
but in the end it will accelerate it.
Judging from historical evidence, 'opening minds' in religious
parlance is synonimous with 'breaking skulls', to let the Truth in, of
course.
Usually followed by a intense bout of 'beating the devil out' of the
sinner......
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
02 Aug 2007 09:17:21 AM |
|
|
On Aug 1, 4:55 pm, Joseph K. <ni...@none.com> wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:01:29 -0700, *Anarcissie*
<anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 1, 11:27 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:43 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1185688393.943347.135...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com> wrote:
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
So you opened yours so far your brains fell out.
Phillip E. Johnson
LMAO! A lawyer who thinks he's an evolutionary biologist.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Yeah, had anyone ever noticed "open your mind" has changed over time.
It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions"
now it means "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions"
"Opening minds" on the part of Creationists is a temporary,
provisional attempt to forestall the debacle of their ideology,
but in the end it will accelerate it.
Judging from historical evidence, 'opening minds' in religious
parlance is synonimous with 'breaking skulls', to let the Truth in, of
course.
I think in the West the repute of religion has fallen
to such an extent that religion advocates hope to
gain by casting doubt on all positive systems of
thought. I've seen articles to this effect elsewhere.
Science is much more respected, therefore it seems to
have more to lose. The strategy evidences a fundamental
misunderstanding of nonreligious thought, corresponding
to the often-seen claim that science or "secular humanism"
is just another religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
02 Aug 2007 09:51:06 AM |
|
|
On Aug 2, 10:17 am, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think in the West the repute of religion has fallen
to such an extent that religion advocates hope to
gain by casting doubt on all positive systems of
thought. I've seen articles to this effect elsewhere.
Science is much more respected, therefore it seems to
have more to lose. The strategy evidences a fundamental
misunderstanding of nonreligious thought, corresponding
to the often-seen claim that science or "secular humanism"
is just another religion.
In the first place thats somewhat of a strawman because the religions
which have fallen are all Levantine. There *are* other options besides
atheism.
In the second, science, even psychology which has given us the term
"group think", suffers from it as well. There are characteristics of
Quantum Physics and nanotechnology which have neared the edge of
mysticism, and in many respects, fallen over it. Reality just aint
what's been cracked up to be anymore.
But agreed that secular humanism looks like religion, holding to
obsolete dogma and acting as if its logical arguments are persuasive
to the masses who not rational. Gibbon noted that in the Roman empire,
the people all believed that religion was true, the philosophers all
thot religion was false, and the magistrates all knew religion was
useful. Atheism, whatever its other virtues, is not very useful.
Gibbon also noted that the pagan could enter the sacred space of any
cult, and no matter what the name given to the divine presence, feel
it, and feel some connection to his own tradition no matter how
different the story line. The global market is moving in that
direction, and in the west, new story lines constantly emerge or are
dredged up from other places, other times, and syncretically adapted.
Atheism and the Levantine faiths are alike in their adherence to a
monopoly on truth, but it is the more diverse, ie 'pagan' subcultures
that are making the most rapid innovation, both in terms of meeting
personal emotional needs, but also technology and money. Whatever
people say they believe, as Ben Franklin observed, they all worship
the Almighty Dollar.
There aint no money in atheism. Just as we've seen Native Americans
return to their ancestral religious traditions, so also now Native
Europeans. The renfairs have the same flavor of pow wows. The Wannabee
Indians have morphed into the Wannabee Wiccans. And just as Native
Americans returned to the ritual use of peyote, mescaline, and
pscilocybin, so also the Native Europeans are re-discovering their
ancient ritual potions.
And its abundantly clear to me, that in the contest between a rational
parsing of scientific atheism, and a ritual orgy hosted by witches,
the overwhelming majority of the men I know, will think the witches
have the right idea.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
02 Aug 2007 02:08:26 PM |
|
|
Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:1186066266.453360.202990@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 2, 10:17 am, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think in the West the repute of religion has fallen
to such an extent that religion advocates hope to
gain by casting doubt on all positive systems of
thought. I've seen articles to this effect elsewhere.
Science is much more respected, therefore it seems to
have more to lose. The strategy evidences a fundamental
misunderstanding of nonreligious thought, corresponding
to the often-seen claim that science or "secular humanism"
is just another religion.
In the first place thats somewhat of a strawman because the religions
which have fallen are all Levantine. There *are* other options besides
atheism.
In the second, science, even psychology which has given us the term
"group think", suffers from it as well. There are characteristics of
Quantum Physics and nanotechnology which have neared the edge of
mysticism, and in many respects, fallen over it. Reality just aint
what's been cracked up to be anymore.
But agreed that secular humanism looks like religion, holding to
obsolete dogma and acting as if its logical arguments are persuasive
to the masses who not rational. Gibbon noted that in the Roman empire,
the people all believed that religion was true, the philosophers all
thot religion was false, and the magistrates all knew religion was
useful. Atheism, whatever its other virtues, is not very useful.
On the contrary, I think it would have been rather useful if, when assorted
Popes, Imans, Guru's and other 'religous leaders' cried 'Go forth and slay
the enemies of God!', the vast majority had chuckled and walk in the other
direction......
Gibbon also noted that the pagan could enter the sacred space of any
cult, and no matter what the name given to the divine presence, feel
it, and feel some connection to his own tradition no matter how
different the story line. The global market is moving in that
direction, and in the west, new story lines constantly emerge or are
dredged up from other places, other times, and syncretically adapted.
Atheism and the Levantine faiths are alike in their adherence to a
monopoly on truth, but it is the more diverse, ie 'pagan' subcultures
that are making the most rapid innovation, both in terms of meeting
personal emotional needs, but also technology and money. Whatever
people say they believe, as Ben Franklin observed, they all worship
the Almighty Dollar.
Athiesm doesn't claim a monopoly on truth, it merely chooses not to accept
any old tosh as 'truth', especially when that 'truth' is unobservable,
unprovable and, frankly, rather silly.
There aint no money in atheism. Just as we've seen Native Americans
return to their ancestral religious traditions, so also now Native
Europeans. The renfairs have the same flavor of pow wows. The Wannabee
Indians have morphed into the Wannabee Wiccans. And just as Native
Americans returned to the ritual use of peyote, mescaline, and
pscilocybin, so also the Native Europeans are re-discovering their
ancient ritual potions.
Umm.... what makes you think they were ever forgotten? Mainly they were
replaced in ritual life by christian-style nonsense, but all lasted in
common lore right up until the advent of the pharma- drug culture.... who
were not averse to plundering the old lore for their base ingedients either.
True, urbanised society has tended to reject the old, but many rural
communities still turn to the old lore for its remedies, for both human and
animal ailments.
And its abundantly clear to me, that in the contest between a rational
parsing of scientific atheism, and a ritual orgy hosted by witches,
the overwhelming majority of the men I know, will think the witches
have the right idea.
On the contrary..... the rational mind would wonder why the necessity for
all the play-acting prior to have a plain old-fashioned orgy......
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
02 Aug 2007 04:47:39 PM |
|
|
On Aug 2, 3:08 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
...
On the contrary..... the rational mind would wonder why the necessity for
all the play-acting prior to have a plain old-fashioned orgy......
People aren't very rational, and they enjoy rituals. My
dominatrix web clients often have to spend a lot of time
and effort setting up role-playing and ritualistic scenes
for their clients. You may say this is merely show biz,
but it seems to me there is a considerable crossover
into religious areas -- a cross, for example, is very
often one of the major appliances in a dominatrix's
"dungeon". There is no doubt that the paraphernalia
and ritual excite some clients sexually and perhaps in
other ways as well; this kind of service usually costs
several hundred dollars a session and there is a huge
market for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
02 Aug 2007 11:44:51 PM |
|
|
*Anarcissie* <anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186091259.625682.162200@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 2, 3:08 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
...
On the contrary..... the rational mind would wonder why the necessity
for
all the play-acting prior to have a plain old-fashioned orgy......
People aren't very rational, and they enjoy rituals. My
dominatrix web clients often have to spend a lot of time
and effort setting up role-playing and ritualistic scenes
for their clients. You may say this is merely show biz,
but it seems to me there is a considerable crossover
into religious areas -- a cross, for example, is very
often one of the major appliances in a dominatrix's
"dungeon". There is no doubt that the paraphernalia
and ritual excite some clients sexually and perhaps in
other ways as well; this kind of service usually costs
several hundred dollars a session and there is a huge
market for it.
Mmmm..... of course, it would explain the apparent inability of Catholic
priests to keep to their vows....
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
03 Aug 2007 12:07:49 PM |
|
|
On Aug 3, 12:44 am, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
*Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186091259.625682.162200@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 2, 3:08 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
...
On the contrary..... the rational mind would wonder why the necessity
for
all the play-acting prior to have a plain old-fashioned orgy......
People aren't very rational, and they enjoy rituals. My
dominatrix web clients often have to spend a lot of time
and effort setting up role-playing and ritualistic scenes
for their clients. You may say this is merely show biz,
but it seems to me there is a considerable crossover
into religious areas -- a cross, for example, is very
often one of the major appliances in a dominatrix's
"dungeon". There is no doubt that the paraphernalia
and ritual excite some clients sexually and perhaps in
other ways as well; this kind of service usually costs
several hundred dollars a session and there is a huge
market for it.
Mmmm..... of course, it would explain the apparent inability of Catholic
priests to keep to their vows....
There's stiff competition. I mean, who would you rather
be flogged by, Goddess Electroclamp wearing a slit soutane
and a great golden spiked cross, raving in Latin, and flashing
the occasional interesting body part, or Father O'Hohum
sweating in his missal?
On the other hand, you get to sue Father O'Hohum later.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
04 Aug 2007 03:32:09 AM |
|
|
*Anarcissie* <anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186160869.974551.81940@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 3, 12:44 am, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
*Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186091259.625682.162200@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 2, 3:08 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
...
On the contrary..... the rational mind would wonder why the
necessity
for
all the play-acting prior to have a plain old-fashioned orgy......
People aren't very rational, and they enjoy rituals. My
dominatrix web clients often have to spend a lot of time
and effort setting up role-playing and ritualistic scenes
for their clients. You may say this is merely show biz,
but it seems to me there is a considerable crossover
into religious areas -- a cross, for example, is very
often one of the major appliances in a dominatrix's
"dungeon". There is no doubt that the paraphernalia
and ritual excite some clients sexually and perhaps in
other ways as well; this kind of service usually costs
several hundred dollars a session and there is a huge
market for it.
Mmmm..... of course, it would explain the apparent inability of Catholic
priests to keep to their vows....
There's stiff competition. I mean, who would you rather
be flogged by, Goddess Electroclamp wearing a slit soutane
and a great golden spiked cross, raving in Latin, and flashing
the occasional interesting body part, or Father O'Hohum
sweating in his missal?
personally, I would take the goddess option, but we must be fair, there must
be some to whom the sweaty cassock would hold more allure.... a scary
thought, it is true....
On the other hand, you get to sue Father O'Hohum later.
Ah, then the economic argument is somewhat different......
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
05 Aug 2007 09:48:32 PM |
|
|
On Aug 4, 4:32 am, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
*Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186160869.974551.81940@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 3, 12:44 am, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
*Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186091259.625682.162200@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 2, 3:08 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
...
On the contrary..... the rational mind would wonder why the
necessity
for
all the play-acting prior to have a plain old-fashioned orgy......
People aren't very rational, and they enjoy rituals. My
dominatrix web clients often have to spend a lot of time
and effort setting up role-playing and ritualistic scenes
for their clients. You may say this is merely show biz,
but it seems to me there is a considerable crossover
into religious areas -- a cross, for example, is very
often one of the major appliances in a dominatrix's
"dungeon". There is no doubt that the paraphernalia
and ritual excite some clients sexually and perhaps in
other ways as well; this kind of service usually costs
several hundred dollars a session and there is a huge
market for it.
Mmmm..... of course, it would explain the apparent inability of Catholic
priests to keep to their vows....
There's stiff competition. I mean, who would you rather
be flogged by, Goddess Electroclamp wearing a slit soutane
and a great golden spiked cross, raving in Latin, and flashing
the occasional interesting body part, or Father O'Hohum
sweating in his missal?
personally, I would take the goddess option, but we must be fair, there must
be some to whom the sweaty cassock would hold more allure.... a scary
thought, it is true....
On the other hand, you get to sue Father O'Hohum later.
Ah, then the economic argument is somewhat different......
It's the old contest between wealth and beauty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
05 Aug 2007 11:53:23 PM |
|
|
*Anarcissie* <anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186368512.602441.107480@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 4, 4:32 am, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
*Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186160869.974551.81940@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 3, 12:44 am, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
*Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186091259.625682.162200@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 2, 3:08 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
...
On the contrary..... the rational mind would wonder why the
necessity
for
all the play-acting prior to have a plain old-fashioned
orgy......
People aren't very rational, and they enjoy rituals. My
dominatrix web clients often have to spend a lot of time
and effort setting up role-playing and ritualistic scenes
for their clients. You may say this is merely show biz,
but it seems to me there is a considerable crossover
into religious areas -- a cross, for example, is very
often one of the major appliances in a dominatrix's
"dungeon". There is no doubt that the paraphernalia
and ritual excite some clients sexually and perhaps in
other ways as well; this kind of service usually costs
several hundred dollars a session and there is a huge
market for it.
Mmmm..... of course, it would explain the apparent inability of
Catholic
priests to keep to their vows....
There's stiff competition. I mean, who would you rather
be flogged by, Goddess Electroclamp wearing a slit soutane
and a great golden spiked cross, raving in Latin, and flashing
the occasional interesting body part, or Father O'Hohum
sweating in his missal?
personally, I would take the goddess option, but we must be fair, there
must
be some to whom the sweaty cassock would hold more allure.... a scary
thought, it is true....
On the other hand, you get to sue Father O'Hohum later.
Ah, then the economic argument is somewhat different......
It's the old contest between wealth and beauty.
To some it is not a contest, wealth _is_ beauty.....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Defeating Religion By Opening Minds |
03 Aug 2007 12:14:18 PM |
|
|
Day Brown napisal(a):
On Aug 2, 10:17 am, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think in the West the repute of religion has fallen
to such an extent that religion advocates hope to
gain by casting doubt on all positive systems of
thought. I've seen articles to this effect elsewhere.
Science is much more respected, therefore it seems to
have more to lose. The strategy evidences a fundamental
misunderstanding of nonreligious thought, corresponding
to the often-seen claim that science or "secular humanism"
is just another religion.
In the first place thats somewhat of a strawman because the religions
which have fallen are all Levantine. There *are* other options besides
atheism.
In the second, science, even psychology which has given us the term
"group think", suffers from it as well. There are characteristics of
Quantum Physics and nanotechnology which have neared the edge of
mysticism, and in many respects, fallen over it. Reality just aint
what's been cracked up to be anymore.
But agreed that secular humanism looks like religion, holding to
obsolete dogma and acting as if its logical arguments are persuasive
to the masses who not rational. Gibbon noted that in the Roman empire,
the people all believed that religion was true, the philosophers all
thot religion was false, and the magistrates all knew religion was
useful. Atheism, whatever its other virtues, is not very useful.
Good comments.
Perhaps the schism between religion and science is itself a fallacy.
Based on poor definitions of nomenclature.
`ex perentia` is the basis of the data sample,
the evaluation, however scientific, cannot escape being 'religious' in
its intuitive premise.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
