Religions > Atheism > I suspect this acrylics instructor and I will be parting company, although I hope not
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
18 Jul 2007 09:39:32 PM |
| Object: |
I suspect this acrylics instructor and I will be parting company, although I hope not |
I'm certainly glad you don't believe in the stuff you told me. I
wouldn't believe it either. It's a good thing what you indicated had
nothing to do with evolution and facts aren't anything to 'believe in.'
One isn't able to argue about something they've no knowledge of
Others have pointed out that St. Augustine's words with a slight
modification remain valid.
Original:
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and
the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars
and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with
certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and
disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about
such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We
should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest
the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
(St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim” (The Literal
Meaning of Genesis))
Now here's that modification they spoke of:
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and
the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars
and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with
certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and
disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about
such things. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing
situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and
laugh to scorn.
/end modification
The Europeans are laughing to scorn. I don't like it either.
You mentioned arguing. You misunderstood. I wasn't arguing. I was
trying to let you know you were operating with bad data/information. I
do much better in writing than I can via speech-especially when I'm
fighting for every word.
Man is a member of the animal kingdom. The three kingdoms are; animal,
vegetable, and mineral.
Man did not come from apes. Apes and man had a common ancestor way
way way back in the mists of time. Thomas Jefferson, for instance. He
lived a couple hundred years ago. There are myraid people alive today
conducting geneology searches and have found that
some six or eight generations back T. J. was an ancestor of theirs.
Obviously, the common ancestor between apes and man is much much
much further back.
I find it strange people have a problem with the fact of evolution, but
yet have no problem stating they came from dust and a magic spell by a
purported universe spanning wizard. Bronze age 'thinking' in an age
where the universe is being explored. Many times I feel like a Cultural
Anthropologist.
Evolution is the genetic changes [easier to understand than alle
frequencies] in a given population. Just like gravity, evolution isn't
anything to 'believe' in.
Both are facts. Both have various hypothesis' to explain the
observations.
There is no 'controversy' about gravity or evolution except in the minds
of people, not you, with an 'axe' to grind. There's no 'Darwinists' or
'Evolutionists.' There are myraid folks who are under educated.
Y'all are good folk, and honest. But you've been fed some bad
information.
That evolution is fact is seen via the birth of every child as s/he
isn't a clone of a parent. It is also seen with the decreasing
effectiveness of antibiotics, the presence of turn species, changes in
church doctrine over time {a different type of evolution}, and many
other areas.
Evolution has zero to do with origin(s). Abiogenesis deals with
origins. Frankly, I'm embarassed for people who have no inkling of what
they lack belief in. A good part of the US's problems stem from the
general lack of education of superstitious folks and the holding that
education has no value. I've heard myraid times from Europeans
the depth of invincible ignorance and bronze age superstition in the
general US population is mindboggling to them.
It also scares the daylights out of them. Christians/Islamisists [same
mindset based on speech, actions, and 'steel trap' minds rusted shut]
terrifies them. The same lack of rationality, education, and reason
while the same type of childish natterings get bandied about as if they
were fact. When the same stupidities and cognitive dissonance
[their words] come from all echelons of the US government they're quite
alarmed.
After all the 'American Christian Taliban' running the country have
nukes. It is also a country which has utilized them offensively, and an
administration which seeks to utilize those weapons in 'low
level/echelon' adventures. As the American Christian Taliban mindset
matches the Islamic Taliban, I'm sure they can be forgiven for being
nervous. They point out the common second class citizen status of the
ladies, as not worth the same as a male, only worth as brood mares, and
other things which I find very distasteful as the victim continues to be
further victimized. All too often the fact fallson deaf ears.
Creationism/Intelligent design or whatever dishonesty the Discovery
Institute/Institute for creation research comes up next in the evolution
of relabling has zero to do with science. Nor does it 'explain'
anything or provide any 'answers.'
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm
This excerpt from the site illuminates the problem that facts can be
quite threatening very nicely. "The theory of evolution undermines the
view that we as a a species have a special place in the universe. It
suggests that the universe is chance-filled. Those are hard ideas for
us to accept. Genesis is much more comforting."
Personally, I'm not comforted by horror stories such as the
Bible/Q'uran. You draw comfort from the Bible. Such is your business.
A few problems with Creationism/D.I. come to mind:
What objective supporting evidence is there the universe was
manufactured?
A coherant and concise definition of the g-o-d letter string is what?
What is generally put forth as a 'definition' begs myraid questions,
handwaves furiously, shamelessly puts forth many unsupported assertions,
and provides zero information. There is, literally, nothing to look for
or consider.
What objective supporting evidence is there the 'johnny come lately'
deity who's as a child at first suck compared to its elder deities did
anything? The oldest creation myth I'm aware of is the Babylonian
Tiamat the Dragon. That mythos is on the order of 5,000
years old compared to J.C. who's only 2,000.
If everything requires a 'manufacturer' then 'who' 'manufactured J.C.?
If J.C. doesn't need a 'manufacturer' then the 'everything requires'
statement is in error. Thefore, the universe qualifies for the
established exemption for a 'manufacturer.'
A flat assertion such as 'God' did this or that can be made. The
problem is anything can be slid into the credit slot and it as the same
validity and 'authority.'
God did 'x.'
Tiamat the Dragon did 'x.'
The Frost Giants did 'x.'
Odin All-Father did 'x.'
Faerie Folk of Underhill did 'x.'
Continue sliding other 'entities' into the slot.
If one were to utilize a tome to support claims/assertions then every
book becomes fact.
Your sister indicated in a/the public school system Christians aren't
allowed to pray aloud while Muslims are. Christians have a nasty habit
of lying their arses off with stuff like this. From the originator the
lie usually spreads like wildfire. Such, like your sisters case, has
nothing to do with a lack of integrity. It generally comes from one
trusted source or multiple trusted sources. The facts, if there are any
specifics, don't get checked. They're accepted and passed on. /cue the
'telephone game.'
A teacher or administrator, someone being paid by the state, is
forbidden while *on duty* to prosetylize. When they are *on duty* they
are defacto 'agents of the state.' Such is being neutral with regard to
religion. Once they're off duty they can do as they please.
Military personnel, unless you're a General politically favored, are
forbidden from wearing the uniform to a political/religious rally. The
'agent of the state' thing again. Again the dearth of education is
'spotlit.'
The Europeans have also indicated for all too many the position seems to
be; "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up." I
understand how they can get that view. It's what is observed by them
from myraid points of the country, society, and government.
This is not a Christian Nation®. The separation of church and state
protects everyone from each other. Don't forget the purges,
imprisonments, murders, in 'jolly olde England'
when the religion of the King changed. The whole purpose was to
[paraphrase] prevent the blood of religious strife from ever touching
our shore.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
Article 11 of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, which was unanimously voted
in by the full Congress and signed by President Adams stated: " Art. 11.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen;
and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility
against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no
pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version
provided by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on
June 10, 1797. Article 11 of the treaty was said to have not been part
of the original Arabic version of the treaty, and was from a letter from
the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.[1]
However it originated, it was undeniably a part of the treaty as
approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy
Pickering and ratified by the Senate by a unanimous vote.
Article 11, reads:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any
sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no
character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of
Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war,
or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the
parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever
produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
countries." ...
Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to
the Senate for ratification in May of 1797, the entire treaty was read
aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11,
and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee
considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was
ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. The treaty was
reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in
New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or
complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.
/end
These words of a young lady I really found shocking:
What do I dislike about theism?...Let me count the ways...
I dislike the hypocrisy,
the corruption,
the greed
and the lies.
I dislike the veneration of ignorance,
the glorification of idiocy,
the wild-eyed hatred of progress
and the fear of education, which send the faithful shrieking,
vampire-like, from the light of knowledge.
I dislike the way in which prejudice
is passed off as piety.
The way superstition is peddled as wisdom.
The way intolerance is raised to the lofty heights
of "Truth".
I dislike how hatred is taught as love,
how fear is instilled as kindness,
how slavery is pressed as freedom,
and how contempt for life is dressed up and adored as spirituality.
I dislike the shackles religions place on the mind,
corrupting, twisting and crushing the spirit
until the believer has been brought down to a suitable state
of worthlessness.
So lost and self-loathing, so bereft of hope or pride,
that they can look into the hallucinated face of their imaginary
oppressor
and feel unbounded love and gratitude for the additional suffering
it has declined,
as yet,
to visit upon them.
I dislike people's need for a communal delusion,
like drug addicts who unite just to share the same needle.
I dislike the way reason is reviled as a vice
and reality is decreed to be a matter of convenience.
The way common sense and ordinary human decency
get re-named "holy law" and advertised as the sole province
of the faithful.
I dislike religions' wholesale theft of any number
of ancient mythologies,
only to turn around and proclaim
how "unique" their doctrine is.
I dislike how intelligence is held as suspect
and inquiry is reviled as a high crime.
I dislike the pillaging of the impoverished,
the extortion of the gullible,
the manipulation of the ignorant
and the domination of the weak.
I dislike the invention of sins
for the satisfaction of those who desire to punish.
I dislike the demonization of unbelievers,
The ill-concealed hate of proselytizers,
The hysterical rants of holy rollers,
The wigged-out warnings of psychic healers,
The dismantling of public education via religious school vouchers,
The erosion of civil rights by theocratic right-wingers,
The righteous wrath of gun-toting true believers,
The destruction wrought by holy warriors,
The blood-drenched fatwas of ayatollas,
and the apocalyptic prophesies of unmedicated messiahs.
Most of all, though, I dislike the certain knowledge
that religion,
in one grotesque form or other,
will be with us so long as there is a single dark, cobwebbed corner
of the human imagination
that a believer can stuff a god into.
/end quote
At the gallery there were a few times I was tempted to ask a curiosity
question. I refrained as that could have been misconstrued as 'stepping
on toes.' I'm sure Tuesday was seen as 'stomping on toes.' Be that as
it may.
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
I suspect this acrylics instructor and I will be parting company, although I hope not
OT: Size not an issue ... although Italy out in front, study finds
WOE UNTO THEE: who ties millstones around the necks of little children and flings them into the sea. although, it is loads of fun.
Arizona Child Protective Services foiled mom's custody bid, 2 kidsremained with dad accused of killing them Although she had a court ordergiving her sole custody
Hardy said although castration is not a popular method in the United States, it is used in other countries where less than 1 percent of pedophiles who are castrated will re-offend. Hardy said if not caught, a pedophile will have an average number of
OT: (semi) The parting on the left is the parting on the right?
Proofs of LORD Almighty GOD: The miracle of the parting of the Red Sea, the miracle of the USS Texas, the miracle of the 2PD-OMER Approach curing type-2 diabetes, and Pastorio dying on April Fool's day.
Talk.Origin Banned Subject: Red Sea Parting Possible By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News
| Is Ford's parting gift to ex-workers 'cruel joke'?
Re: Not cool!
Not exactly a tornado in a junkyard
OT: It's greed, not ideology, that rules the White House
Re: the *real* reasons why the Constitution should *not* ban gay marriage
Re: What Christianity does when it is not brutally controlled
John Kerry: Not So Swift
|
|
|
