| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2007 09:15:00 AM |
| Object: |
Judaism-adherents should seek converts |
someone:
The Bible forbids homosexuality,
fornication, adultery, rape, incest, stealing,
lying, cheating, pride, envy, coveting, murder, a
contentious attitude, maliciousness,
disobedience to righteous authority, backbiting,
gossiping, denial of God, etc. as well as
those who take pleasure (accommodate) in the
sins of others.
another:
It forbids even more, but this list is good
enough. Why is it that conservative Christians
don't push constitutional amendments banning
gossiping or pride?
Who knows.
There are degrees of wickedness. To illustrate, two men having sex
with each other is less wicked than a man having sex with a pubescent
boy, which is less wicked than a man having sex with a toddler.
The idea that
homosexuality is a special kind of badness
above and beyond the others is not in the
Bible. It's a creation of present day
conservatives.
Do you think "the idea that" adultery is worse than stealing is "in the
Bible"?
Are you aware of any cities that the God of Judaism allegedly destroyed
in the Old Testament because of the activity therein of:
homosexuality?
lying?
cheating?
stealing?
To answer another question. You simply
cannot be a "Jew for Jesus". It's a
contradiction. Jews do not proselytize, period.
Prager, Dennis and Joseph Telushkin. 1983. _Why the Jews?: The Reason
for Antisemitism_ (NY: Simon & Schuster), 238pp. On 184, 185:
A third possible way to prevent antisemitism,
particularly in the United States today, is to increase
the number of Jews through converting many non-
Jews to Judaism. This helps prevent antisemitism
in four ways. ....
Now the only question remaining is does Judaism
seek converts?
The answer is yes. This surprises most Jews, who
for so long have believed that Judaism discourages
people from converting.
If someone wants to convert, we give him/her a
hard time.
Who is "we"? "Convert" to what-- Judaism? Christianity?
Darwinianity?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Coulter takes on Darwinianity
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158329398.661032.206750%40i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: bin Laden decries "President Clinton's immoral acts" |
24 Jan 2007 09:17:16 PM |
|
|
Does anyone here think Bill Clinton didn't do any [bin Laden]"immoral
acts committed in the Oval Office"?
bin Laden
http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_08/issue_23/opinion_02.html
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to STOP
YOUR OPPRESSION, LIES, IMMORALITY AND
DEBAUCHERY that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners,
principles, honor, and purity; to reject the immoral
acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants,
gambling, and trading with interest.
==
(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality,
and you consider them to be pillars of personal
freedom. You have continued to sink down this
abyss from level to level until incest has spread
amongst you, in the face of which neither your
sense of honor nor your laws object.
Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral
acts committed in the Oval Office? After that you did
not even bring him to account, other than that he
"made a mistake," after which everything passed
with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event
for which your name will go down in history and
remembered by nations?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Democrat Sex Harassment & Coverup Guidelines; Willey; Jones; Lewinsky
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990129001746.1045886D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Lisa Myers of NBC was fooled by Juanita Broaddrick
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133585935.598090.70930%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2Ix1uCqKzVI
the joys of being a Democrat
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133539234.146222.202320%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Do you think Hollywood assists in helping extremist Islamic ideas to
take root in the Middle East?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1161179978.675544.189930%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
has Bill Clinton done anything "immoral"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164286059.694553.136640%40h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian, atheistic a-moral climate
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Is infanticide "evil"?; Reagan; Nordau
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1131387293.922571.147570%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: bin Laden decries "President Clinton's immoral acts" |
24 Jan 2007 11:37:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Does anyone here think Bill Clinton didn't do any [bin Laden]"immoral
acts committed in the Oval Office"?
bin Laden
http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_08/issue_23/opinion_02.html
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to STOP
YOUR OPPRESSION, LIES, IMMORALITY AND
DEBAUCHERY that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners,
principles, honor, and purity; to reject the immoral
acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants,
gambling, and trading with interest.
==
(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality,
and you consider them to be pillars of personal
freedom. You have continued to sink down this
abyss from level to level until incest has spread
amongst you, in the face of which neither your
sense of honor nor your laws object.
Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral
acts committed in the Oval Office? After that you did
not even bring him to account, other than that he
"made a mistake," after which everything passed
with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event
for which your name will go down in history and
remembered by nations?
If Osama bin Laden were American he would be Republican.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: bin Laden decries "President Clinton's immoral acts" |
25 Jan 2007 07:26:06 PM |
|
|
On Jan 25, 12:37 am, "towelie" <bugoNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If Osama bin Laden were American he
would be Republican.
On what issues?
global warming?
Kyoto?
Abortion?
the Iraq war?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: harm that Christians do? |
29 Jan 2007 08:04:55 AM |
|
|
Messing about with science in schools;
How so?
abusing their children by teaching them fantasies;
Do you think those that do so and refuse to stop should be jailed?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
1997 Nicholas Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406081943.625bd70c
%40posting.google.com
Andrew Brown's comments on Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.
0406131334.2de61508%40posting.google.com
abortion;
What's your position on abortion performed for reasons of personal
convenience?
stem-cell research;
What's your position on killing human embryos for research purposes?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////
applauding those who kill sub-person human embryos
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1153489662.014861.278290%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
torturing people like Terry Schaivo (and
quite possibly me in a few years);
"torturing people like Terry Schaivo"
How so? Details, please.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Terri Schindler Schiavo story with villains, victims, and heroes
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1115741978.820440.50060%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
not-PVS
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1115683914.394927.244340%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Sub-persons/ sub-humans are expendable.
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1149820884.102362.221630%40u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1139372980.005787.15450%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
keeping gay folk away
from their partners in hospital;
Do you have a problem with keeping folk who engage in pedophilia away
from their children?
preventing gay marriage.
What is "gay marriage"?
Other than that Christians are just fine.
Do you have any problems with any famous atheists?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////
the secular religion of atheism has a bloody history
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1121400956.627638.38960%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
become like famous mass-killer atheists, and have others worship you
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1152629227.581932.229990%40s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonkeyHawk" |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
29 Jan 2007 08:42:32 AM |
|
|
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote...
Messing about with science in schools;
How so?
New to the planet, are you?
Believe what you want as a matter of faith.
Faith can't be wrong.
Science, however, is restricted by facts. New facts can be discovered.
Every conjecture in science is subject to objective criticism and fact-based
tests.
Faith is fine. There's a place for it in life, I suppose.
But it has nothing to do with science.
Faith in a laboratory is like a place kicker in baseball.
So-called "Christians" simply don't understand that little reality.
abusing their children by teaching them fantasies;
Do you think those that do so and refuse to stop should be jailed?
Didn't know that was an issue.
Do you have a cite?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
1997 Nicholas Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406081943.625bd70c
%40posting.google.com
Andrew Brown's comments on Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.
0406131334.2de61508%40posting.google.com
abortion;
What's your position on abortion performed for reasons of personal
convenience?
Basically, that it's none of your business unless you're the pregnant woman
involved.
And, if you are, it's an issue between you, your doctor, and your god.
That's the American way.
stem-cell research;
What's your position on killing human embryos for research purposes?
My position is that an embryo compared to a walking, talking, thinking human
being is kinda like the difference between eggs for breakfast and chicken
for supper.
My position is there's a difference between a catterpillar and a butterfly.
My position is that a glop of cells that can't be observed except under a
microscope is different from a self-sufficient human being.
My position is that -- as a matter of law, not faith -- a human being's life
begins when s/he is born. That's when we start counting age. (A kid gets a
driver's license 16 years after the birthdate...not 16 years after
conception...not at age 16 years plus 1 month if born a preemie.) It might
seem arbitrary, but that's how laws work. Drive 70 mph and you're legal;
drive 71 mph and they can ticket your *****. Laws -- at least in America --
are irrelevant to religious faith. It doesn't mean your faith can't direct
and shape your personal actions and opinions; it simply shouldn't be imposed
on others under the color of law.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////
applauding those who kill sub-person human embryos
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1153489662.014861.278290%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
torturing people like Terry Schaivo (and
quite possibly me in a few years);
"torturing people like Terry Schaivo"
How so? Details, please.
It was in the papers.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Terri Schindler Schiavo story with villains, victims, and heroes
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1115741978.820440.50060%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
not-PVS
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1115683914.394927.244340%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Sub-persons/ sub-humans are expendable.
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1149820884.102362.221630%40u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1139372980.005787.15450%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
keeping gay folk away
from their partners in hospital;
Do you have a problem with keeping folk who engage in pedophilia away
from their children?
If it weren't for non sequitors you'd have no sequitors at all.
preventing gay marriage.
What is "gay marriage"?
This, too, has been in the papers.
Just how ignorant have you chosen to be?
Other than that Christians are just fine.
Do you have any problems with any famous atheists?
There are "famous athiests?"
List a few and I'll get back to you.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////
the secular religion of atheism has a bloody history
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1121400956.627638.38960%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Yeah, well. The Catholic Church never tortured or killed anybody, now did
they?
The good Christians of the Ku Klux Klan never lynched, raped, or attacked
anybody, either. Right?
Every religion has a bloody history.
And calling it the "religion of atheism" is about the biggest oxymoron
imaginable.
Then again, making sense doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
become like famous mass-killer atheists, and have others worship you
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1152629227.581932.229990%40s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
You can't name a single atrocity in history committed by "the religion of
atheism" that doesn't have a parallel atrocity committed by religionists.
Maybe we're hard-wired for atrocity, regardless of race, religion, or creed.
You want faith? You want theology? Cool by me.
If it rocks your boat, groovy.
But there are areas in the human condition that religion is simply not
relevant.
One of those areas is the Constitution of the United States of America.
Anybody can participate, but no one is able to play the God card to trump
others who might deign to worship God differently or, even, worship a
different "god." The God card simply isn't in the deck when it comes to the
Constitution of the United States.
Same thing with science. Nothing prevents a scientist from believing in, or
not believing in, a supernatural being. Science simply deals with what's
natural and observable and predictable. And, within those limits, science
has served us pretty well.
But as soon as "Christians" or "Muslims" or "Jews," or people who worship
Bonzo the Sun God start pushing their beliefs and faith (and attendant
certainty) into government or science or justice (or, for that matter,
baseball), they've gone over the line.
Believe what you want. Worship however it works for you; Catholic Mass or
Assembly of God altar call, fasting through Ramadan or atoning your sins on
Yom Kippur. Slather on oil and worship Bonzo on the beach. Whatever cooks
for you, solid.
But American democracy, literally, doesn't play with a full deck.
You can't play the God card.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
29 Jan 2007 09:37:56 PM |
|
|
I hate Christians, and for good reason. They're a joke, a
creepy minority of illogical nimrods who spend their lives
consumed with how other people live theirs. It's pathetic.
Are you concerned with how the subscribers
mentioned below live their lives?
Vachss, Andrew. 19 February 2006. "Let's Fight This Terrible Crime
Against Our Children" _Parade_, 4-5. Text from
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_02-19-2006/
Andrew_Vachss
Every purchase of child pornography encourages
further growth of this evil business: from "custom"
child pornography-- the sale of images of child rape
created to order for the consumer-- to "real-time"
child pornography, where subscribers pay to watch
the streamed online rape of children as it occurs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deputy Dumbya Dawg" |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
30 Jan 2007 08:39:38 AM |
|
|
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1170128276.029884.66700@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:> I hate Christians, and for good reason. They're a
joke, a
: > creepy minority of illogical nimrods who spend
their lives
: > consumed with how other people live theirs. It's
pathetic.
:
: Are you concerned with how the subscribers
: mentioned below live their lives?
:
: Vachss, Andrew. 19 February 2006. "Let's Fight This
Terrible Crime
: Against Our Children" _Parade_, 4-5. Text from
:
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_02-19-2006/
: Andrew_Vachss
: Every purchase of child pornography encourages
: further growth of this evil business: from
"custom"
: child pornography-- the sale of images of child
rape
: created to order for the consumer-- to
"real-time"
: child pornography, where subscribers pay to watch
: the streamed online rape of children as it
occurs.
And how does the above relate to the christian jihad
taking the lives of 650000 Iraqi citizens. Christians
are dangerous mass murdering war profiteers who want to
blame everyone but their belief in Jezus for their war
crimes. I hate the bastards and work to ***** over each
and every one I can identify. ***** you cunts and the
elephant you rode in on.
peace
dawg.
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "udarrell" |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
30 Jan 2007 10:01:26 AM |
|
|
Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1170128276.029884.66700@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:> I hate Christians, and for good reason. They're a
joke, a creepy minority of illogical nimrods who spend
their lives consumed with how other people live theirs. It's pathetic.
: Are you concerned with how the subscribers mentioned below live their lives?
:Vachss, Andrew. 19 February 2006. "Let's Fight This
Terrible Crime Against Our Children" _Parade_, 4-5. Text from
And how does the above relate to the christian jihad
taking the lives of 650000 Iraqi citizens. Christians
are dangerous mass murdering war profiteers who want to
blame everyone but their belief in Jezus for their war
crimes. I hate the bastards and work to mess over each
and every one I can identify. (Edit) You who rode in on an elephant.
peace - dawg.
They are NOT followers of Jesus Christ! They are fakes!
Jesus teaches and commands the opposite of what these hypocrites do!
NO genuine christian would ever harm children or have considered
invading Iraq!
http://www.udarrell.com/sin_blessings.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden
Bin Laden's Initial Denial concerning 9-11 - Quoting the Press:
Bin Laden denied involvement with the 9/11 attacks five days later on
the Al-Jazeera <file:///C:%5Cbrowse%5Cwiki%5CAl-Jazeera> satellite channel:
"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have
been carried out by individuals with their own motivation ... "
This denial was broadcast worldwide, but the Bush administration urged
media in the U.S. NOT to show the video since it might contain secret
signals to Al Qaeda terrorists.
On September 28, 2001 in the Pakistani newspaper Daily Ummat
<file:///C:%5Cbrowse%5Cwiki%5CDaily_Ummat>
<file:///C:%5Cgo%5Chttp:%5Cwww.justresponse.net%5CBin_Laden1.html>, bin
Laden again denied any involvement with the attacks, and suggested he
was being framed:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks
in the United States. 'As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a
lie.' I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing
of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act.
Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and
other people ..."
"There exists a government within the government of the United States.
That secret government must be asked as to who carried out these
attacks. The United States should trace the perpetrators of these
attacks to those persons who want to make the present century a century
of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own nation
could survive."
What was the real motive for NOT wanting Americans’ to hear his initial
denial of having any knowledge of 9-11.
Why would Osama bin Laden commit a horrible sin in violation of his
religion by later lying in videos saying he was the director of the 9-11
events?
Videos can be fixed to say what someone else wants them to say.
--
WISDOM PRINCIPLED EMPOWERMENT COMMUNICATIONS -
THE REAL POLITICAL ISSUES and PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT
The Powerful Living Wisdom of the Eternal Cosmic Spiritual Principles’
- LET US all live & be guided by those Powerful Spiritual Truths
http://www.udarrell.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deputy Dumbya Dawg" |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
30 Jan 2007 10:23:41 AM |
|
|
"udarrell" <anonymousl@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:qZJvh.1965$G23.1771@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
: Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
:
: ><dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
:
news:1170128276.029884.66700@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: >:> I hate Christians, and for good reason. They're a
: >joke, a creepy minority of illogical nimrods who
spend
: >their lives consumed with how other people live
theirs. It's pathetic.
: >: Are you concerned with how the subscribers
mentioned below live their lives?
: >:Vachss, Andrew. 19 February 2006. "Let's Fight
This
: >Terrible Crime Against Our Children" _Parade_, 4-5.
Text from
: >
: >And how does the above relate to the christian jihad
: >taking the lives of 650000 Iraqi citizens.
Christians
: >are dangerous mass murdering war profiteers who want
to
: >blame everyone but their belief in Jezus for their
war
: >crimes. I hate the bastards and work to mess over
each
: >and every one I can identify. (Edit) You who rode in
on an elephant.
: >peace - dawg.
: >
: >
: They are NOT followers of Jesus Christ! They are
fakes!
: Jesus teaches and commands the opposite of what these
hypocrites do!
: NO genuine christian would ever harm children or have
considered
: invading Iraq!
*****! All christians are fools following bu$h's
lead to KILL KILL KILLL unless you are unborn or an
embryo than the mantra becomes save save save.
Christians are the definition of lunatics. ***** every
last one of you deluded shitstains on humanity. *****
you all. Jesus died for your sins----then I hate your
guts and wish for your complete ruin, every last one of
you.
I do pray however. I pray that Jexus will rapture all
the christians so there can be peace on earth. I hope I
am right in believing that part of the bible.
peace
Dawg.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
30 Jan 2007 08:24:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:01:26 GMT, udarrell <anonymousl@anonymous.com>
wrote:
Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1170128276.029884.66700@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:> I hate Christians, and for good reason. They're a
joke, a creepy minority of illogical nimrods who spend
their lives consumed with how other people live theirs. It's pathetic.
: Are you concerned with how the subscribers mentioned below live their lives?
:Vachss, Andrew. 19 February 2006. "Let's Fight This
Terrible Crime Against Our Children" _Parade_, 4-5. Text from
And how does the above relate to the christian jihad
taking the lives of 650000 Iraqi citizens. Christians
are dangerous mass murdering war profiteers who want to
blame everyone but their belief in Jezus for their war
crimes. I hate the bastards and work to mess over each
and every one I can identify. (Edit) You who rode in on an elephant.
peace - dawg.
They are NOT followers of Jesus Christ! They are fakes!
Oh, good. It has been _minutes_ since we have had the "But they are
NOT real TRVE christians" dodge from somebody. I was growing a bit
lonely for it.
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
30 Jan 2007 10:17:31 AM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 9:39 am, "Deputy Dumbya Dawg"
<Deputy_Dumbya_D...@whiteehouuse.gov> wrote:
And how does the above relate to
It doesn't.
the christian jihad
taking the lives of 650000 Iraqi citizens.
Ref for "650000"?
Taken by who? al Qaeda?
How many "lives of... Iraqi citizens" did Saddam take?
Christians
are dangerous mass murdering war
profiteers who want to
blame everyone but their belief in Jezus
for their war
crimes.
Names of some of these "dangerous mass murdering war profiteers"?
///////////////////////////////////////////////
become like famous mass-killer atheists, and have others worship you
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1152629227.581932.229990%40s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I hate the bastards and work to
***** over each
and every one I can identify. ***** you
cunts and the
elephant you rode in on.
Would you like to rape anyone?
What are 3 actions you consider immoral (if any)?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
atheism-adherent Sartre: "everything is permissible if God does not
exist"
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1148953550.334506.168420%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deputy Dumbya Dawg" |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
30 Jan 2007 10:30:12 AM |
|
|
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message :
: > the christian jihad
: > taking the lives of 650000 Iraqi citizens.
:
: Ref for "650000"?
: Taken by who? al Qaeda?
:
: How many "lives of... Iraqi citizens" did Saddam
take?
What Saddam did was not done in the name of the United
States of America. What little fucktard bu$h and his
synchophant supporters like you did, Murder Six Hundred
Fifty Thousand Iraqi Citizens, was in the name of the
UNited States of America, my country and I am one to
make sure the world knows that I was against murdering
fucktards like you and bu$h.
***** you rightard.
peace
dawg?
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua E." |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
29 Jan 2007 09:06:07 AM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2007 06:04:55 -0800, wrote:
torturing people like Terry Schaivo (and
quite possibly me in a few years);
The thing I found the most amazing about that whole absurd affair was
the fact that the conservatives were using the argument that she was
alive and aware inside her head as an argument _against_ pulling her
feeding tube.
My God (har, har) what a nightmare! To me, that'd be the most potent
argument in _favor_ of a mercy killing! Can you imagine being stuck
in there for decades, no ability to communicate in any way, no control
over any part of yourself or your environment, just trapped in your
head year after year after year after year... you'd almost certainly
be completely insane after a couple of years of that, and even if not
you'd be longing for death every minute. How somebody could imagine
that anyone would choose to remain in that state for 20 or 30 years is
completely beyond me. Kill me, please!
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonkeyHawk" |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
29 Jan 2007 10:09:55 AM |
|
|
"Joshua E." <not@available.net> wrote
The thing I found the most amazing about that whole absurd affair was
the fact that the conservatives were using the argument that she was
alive and aware inside her head as an argument _against_ pulling her
feeding tube.
My God (har, har) what a nightmare! To me, that'd be the most potent
argument in _favor_ of a mercy killing! Can you imagine being stuck
in there for decades, no ability to communicate in any way, no control
over any part of yourself or your environment, just trapped in your
head year after year after year after year... you'd almost certainly
be completely insane after a couple of years of that, and even if not
you'd be longing for death every minute. How somebody could imagine
that anyone would choose to remain in that state for 20 or 30 years is
completely beyond me. Kill me, please!
Good point.
I just don't understand the Cult of Life.
As if anyone gets out of this human condition alive.
We worship all those people on obituary pages for their "courageous battle
against cancer," all of those battles lost.
We somehow consider the death penalty to be the supreme punishment. But my
idea of living hell is thirty or forty years or more of living in a cage
until the Grim Reaper happens to stop by.
I've known many people who have died and I miss them. Their loss to me
makes me sad. But it's not like it wasn't gonna happen sometime.
The Death Penalty strikes me as society sentencing someone to jump up into
the air, and your *punishment* will be falling back to earth.
It's gonna happen.
It's simply a matter of time.
I happen to like living. But I'm under no misconception that it's gonna
last forever. Living *or* liking it.
But I've thought about my own obituary reading something like, "...died
after a cowardly retreat from a battle with cancer. He refused to pull the
rip-cord of his parachute."
If you are the least bit spiritual, this threescore-plus-ten experience is
simply a transition. If you're not in the least spiritual, what you see is
what you get and someday you're not gonna see it anymore. Deal with it.
If it's like the cartoons and I find myseld standing outside the Pearly
Gates, I guess St. Peter and I will have a good laugh. "Fooled you!" he'll
say.
And if I end up treading brimstone in a lake of fire for all eternity, I'll
be in good company: Mark Twain, Lenny Bruce, John Lennon, and the girl who
gave me my first blow-job in 8th Grade.
Beats the hell out of an eternity with Jerry Falwell.
As I said, I like life. I'm gonna work to live 'til it kills me. But I'm
not gonna be a nut about it.
And I really don't understand the concept of so-called "Godly" people
considering themselves "pro-life." If there's anyone who's pro-death, it's
God. Everyone He's created has, or is gonna, die.
So what?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
29 Jan 2007 09:41:45 AM |
|
|
"Joshua E." <not@available.net> wrote in message
news:c13sr25g360m5hv8u3ssfctcc1sf6c274n@4ax.com...
On 29 Jan 2007 06:04:55 -0800, wrote:
torturing people like Terry Schaivo (and
quite possibly me in a few years);
The thing I found the most amazing about that whole absurd affair was
the fact that the conservatives were using the argument that she was
alive and aware inside her head as an argument _against_ pulling her
feeding tube.
My God (har, har) what a nightmare! To me, that'd be the most potent
argument in _favor_ of a mercy killing! Can you imagine being stuck
in there for decades, no ability to communicate in any way, no control
over any part of yourself or your environment, just trapped in your
head year after year after year after year... you'd almost certainly
be completely insane after a couple of years of that, and even if not
you'd be longing for death every minute. How somebody could imagine
that anyone would choose to remain in that state for 20 or 30 years is
completely beyond me. Kill me, please!
You are absolutely correct. the problem is that religious fanatics don't
give a damn
about human suffering if they think it pleases their imaginary god and saves
them
from their imaginary Hell!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
29 Jan 2007 10:46:33 AM |
|
|
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:OAovh.9058$p%6.1726@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
My God (har, har) what a nightmare! To me, that'd be the most potent
argument in _favor_ of a mercy killing! Can you imagine being stuck
in there for decades, no ability to communicate in any way, no control
over any part of yourself or your environment, just trapped in your
head year after year after year after year... you'd almost certainly
be completely insane after a couple of years of that, and even if not
you'd be longing for death every minute. How somebody could imagine
that anyone would choose to remain in that state for 20 or 30 years is
completely beyond me. Kill me, please!
You are absolutely correct. the problem is that religious fanatics don't
give a damn
about human suffering if they think it pleases their imaginary god and
saves them
from their imaginary Hell!
Spot on!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
29 Jan 2007 09:43:27 PM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 11:46 am, "Geoff" <g...@nospam.com> wrote:
Re: Terri Schindler Schiavo, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:OAovh.9058$p%6.1726@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
My God (har, har) what a nightmare! To me, that'd be the most potent
argument in _favor_ of a mercy killing! Can you imagine being stuck
in there for decades, no ability to communicate in any way, no control
over any part of yourself or your environment, just trapped in your
head year after year after year after year... you'd almost certainly
be completely insane after a couple of years of that, and even if not
you'd be longing for death every minute. How somebody could imagine
that anyone would choose to remain in that state for 20 or 30 years is
completely beyond me. Kill me, please!
You are absolutely correct. the problem is that religious fanatics don't
give a damn
about human suffering if they think it pleases their imaginary god and
saves them
from their imaginary Hell!
Spot on!
If you were in 1938 Nazi Germany, would you have opposed or supported
the killing of Baby Knauer?
From
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing
some human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
That case came to their
attention in late 1938. A baby had been born with birth
defects: Baby Knauer was blind and had a leg and part of
an arm missing. The parents were distraught and,
accepting the general value system of their time, were
deeply ashamed to have brought a useless eater into the
world. They wrote requesting permission to have their
child "put to sleep." Hitler was quite interested in the
case and sent one of his personal physicians, Karl
Rudolph Brandt, to investigate. Brandt's instructions
from the Fuhrer were to verify the facts of the baby's
condition and, if true, to assure the child's doctors and
her parents that if she was killed, no one would face
punishment or liability. Brandt was then to witness the
euthanasia and report back to Hitler. The doctors in the
case who met with Brandt agreed that there was "no
justification for keeping the child alive," and Baby
Knauer soon became one of the first victims of the
Holocaust.^27
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: harm that Christians do? |
30 Jan 2007 03:03:12 PM |
|
|
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1170128606.949735.94030@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
If you were in 1938 Nazi Germany, would you have opposed or supported
the killing of Baby Knauer?
How does this even remotely compare to either
a. Terry Schiavo, an adult in a persistent vegetative state, or
b. any adult wishing to be euthanized if ever in a persistent vegetative
state
This is what we were talking about. Bringing up obscure situations from
nearly 70 years ago in Nazi Germany is simply being argumentative.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: can there be a secular faith? |
29 Jan 2007 08:12:02 AM |
|
|
Stalin was evil, Hitler too, and
they killed millions, irrespective of what they themselves
believed.
Both Stalin and Hitler were atheists.
Hitler engaged in homosexual activity. Was that "evil"?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
the atheism-adherent Hitler's actions are quite understandable
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1127506418.014874.230840%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
become like famous mass-killer atheists, and have others worship you
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1152629227.581932.229990%40s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
We could quibble about whether they killed for fun or
they killed for power, or they killed people because they were
Christians, but it doesn't matter. They were evil.
And the same goes for the Spanish Inquisition, the current crop
of Jihadists, the crusaders (whether they were provoked or not),
and all the other faith-heads who would kill to impose their faith
on others. They are evil too.
"the Spanish Inquisition"
Igra: homosexuality a "poisoned stream" in human history
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1144986392.404825.109570%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Hitler; Darwin: "the evil which the Catholic Church has thus effected
is incalculable"
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1134662154.179171.232450%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
"all the other faith-heads who would kill to impose their faith on
others. They are evil too."
time to get angry with Islam, faith-heads, & Abrahamic religions
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1158341451.303277.255530%40b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
And, to a lesser extent, are those who attempt to impose their
beliefs on others. Justifying these impositions in the name of
faith doesn't justify it; it makes the offense worse.
Do you think there can be such a thing as a secular faith?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
the Nazi Robert Ley was an atheism-adherent who worshiped Hitler and
Nature
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1143171898.121370.76730%40e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
Klinghoffer's "Worshipers At The Secular Altar"
http://www.mylifeafter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?
p=33302&sid=37dac5255c9255476199764b590e8d0b
the courts on the secular religion of secular humanism
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1127528146.999596.314660%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
1980 John Durant: the secular myths of evolution have had "a damaging
effect on scientific research", leading to "distortion, to needless
controversy, and to the gross misuse of science"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.
0406081707.2b79a9e0%40posting.google.com
the secular religion of atheism has a bloody history
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1121400956.627638.38960%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherents
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
secular religiosity
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1157425453.315717.30590%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
1993 Michael Ruse: "for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a
kind of secular religion"
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1164729280.977099.300830%40h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: can there be a secular faith? |
29 Jan 2007 09:46:54 AM |
|
|
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1170079922.598352.78190@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Stalin was evil, Hitler too, and
they killed millions, irrespective of what they themselves
believed.
Both Stalin and Hitler were atheists.
If Hitler was an atheist, then I'm Eva Braun.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: can there be a secular faith? |
29 Jan 2007 09:47:58 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:46:54 -0500, "Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1170079922.598352.78190@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Stalin was evil, Hitler too, and
they killed millions, irrespective of what they themselves
believed.
Both Stalin and Hitler were atheists.
If Hitler was an atheist, then I'm Eva Braun.
I know it's only David Ford, but why do these loonies keep repeating
this stupid falsehood?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: can there be a secular faith? |
29 Jan 2007 10:45:09 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1o5sr21kdhsa822ne11vvrn7ht7ke450pv@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:46:54 -0500, "Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1170079922.598352.78190@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Stalin was evil, Hitler too, and
they killed millions, irrespective of what they themselves
believed.
Both Stalin and Hitler were atheists.
If Hitler was an atheist, then I'm Eva Braun.
I know it's only David Ford, but why do these loonies keep repeating
this stupid falsehood?
As an atheist, knowing that Stalin was an atheist concerns me not in the
least. I know that he didn't murder people because they disagreed with his
atheism. No, he murdered people because they disagreed with him. Stalin
Russia was a cult of personality not unlike any religion.
Many theists can do the same regarding Hitler and the fact that he was a
Christian. Hitler's genocidal rampage certainly was predominantly as a means
to consolidate power and to propagate fear. But there is always the
undercurrent of anti-Semitism which was rampant in Catholicism and
Christianity in Europe for centuries.
Admitting that Hitler was a Catholic and a Christian is tantamount to
admitting that Christianity is evil for some people. The only thing they can
do is stick their fingers in their ears scream.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: can there be a secular faith? |
29 Jan 2007 11:09:00 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:45:09 -0500, "Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1o5sr21kdhsa822ne11vvrn7ht7ke450pv@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:46:54 -0500, "Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1170079922.598352.78190@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Stalin was evil, Hitler too, and
they killed millions, irrespective of what they themselves
believed.
Both Stalin and Hitler were atheists.
If Hitler was an atheist, then I'm Eva Braun.
I know it's only David Ford, but why do these loonies keep repeating
this stupid falsehood?
As an atheist, knowing that Stalin was an atheist concerns me not in the
least. I know that he didn't murder people because they disagreed with his
atheism. No, he murdered people because they disagreed with him. Stalin
Russia was a cult of personality not unlike any religion.
Many theists can do the same regarding Hitler and the fact that he was a
Christian. Hitler's genocidal rampage certainly was predominantly as a means
to consolidate power and to propagate fear. But there is always the
undercurrent of anti-Semitism which was rampant in Catholicism and
Christianity in Europe for centuries.
Both despotic dictators doing what despotic dictators do to get into
and retain power.
However when they are atheist they have one less motivator or
justifier than when they aren't.
The anti-Semitism wasn't just Catholic but also Protestant. Martin
Luther's writings on the Jews are pretty horrific. Catholic
anti-Semitism goes back to the early church fathers like Chrysostom.
Even Augustine wasn't innocent in this.
Although to givethe RCC credit, the then Pope (Vatican II) made a
statement exonerating the Jews from killing Christ.
At the time I thought it was arrogant and condescending because Christ
was part of the Christianity not Judaism. But afterwards I realised
that it was meant for Catholics, to stop them thinking of Jews as
Christ-killers.
Admitting that Hitler was a Catholic and a Christian is tantamount to
admitting that Christianity is evil for some people. The only thing they can
do is stick their fingers in their ears scream.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: can there be a secular faith? |
29 Jan 2007 09:46:15 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2007 06:12:02 -0800, wrote:
Both Stalin and Hitler were atheists.
Yeah.. right. So atheists go around killing because they are
atheists. Reason enough, right?
It's typical of hate mongers to attack a minority as the source of
their intellectual ignorance.
I watched Schindler's List(sp?) today. Do you think I laughed or
cried?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: can there be a secular faith? |
29 Jan 2007 09:50:08 PM |
|
|
In News 6aftr29n2nn4mgmttrass2029dao2hgcsi@4ax.com,, Stephen Knight at
wooly51@comcast.net, typed this:
On 29 Jan 2007 06:12:02 -0800, wrote:
Both Stalin and Hitler were atheists.
Yeah.. right. So atheists go around killing because they are
atheists. Reason enough, right?
It's typical of hate mongers to attack a minority as the source of
their intellectual ignorance.
I watched Schindler's List(sp?) today. Do you think I laughed or
cried?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Not to mention that Hitler was baptized and raised a Catholic and Stalin was
a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church... But let's not let that get in
the way.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua E." |
|
| Title: Re: can there be a secular faith? |
29 Jan 2007 08:58:06 AM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2007 06:12:02 -0800, wrote:
Stalin was evil, Hitler too, and
they killed millions, irrespective of what they themselves
believed.
Both Stalin and Hitler were atheists.
Hitler engaged in homosexual activity. Was that "evil"?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
the atheism-adherent Hitler's actions are quite understandable
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1127506418.014874.230840%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
become like famous mass-killer atheists, and have others worship you
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1152629227.581932.229990%40s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
We could quibble about whether they killed for fun or
they killed for power, or they killed people because they were
Christians, but it doesn't matter. They were evil.
And the same goes for the Spanish Inquisition, the current crop
of Jihadists, the crusaders (whether they were provoked or not),
and all the other faith-heads who would kill to impose their faith
on others. They are evil too.
"the Spanish Inquisition"
Igra: homosexuality a "poisoned stream" in human history
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1144986392.404825.109570%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Hitler; Darwin: "the evil which the Catholic Church has thus effected
is incalculable"
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1134662154.179171.232450%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
"all the other faith-heads who would kill to impose their faith on
others. They are evil too."
time to get angry with Islam, faith-heads, & Abrahamic religions
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1158341451.303277.255530%40b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
And, to a lesser extent, are those who attempt to impose their
beliefs on others. Justifying these impositions in the name of
faith doesn't justify it; it makes the offense worse.
Do you think there can be such a thing as a secular faith?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
the Nazi Robert Ley was an atheism-adherent who worshiped Hitler and
Nature
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1143171898.121370.76730%40e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
Klinghoffer's "Worshipers At The Secular Altar"
http://www.mylifeafter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?
p=33302&sid=37dac5255c9255476199764b590e8d0b
the courts on the secular religion of secular humanism
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1127528146.999596.314660%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
1980 John Durant: the secular myths of evolution have had "a damaging
effect on scientific research", leading to "distortion, to needless
controversy, and to the gross misuse of science"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.
0406081707.2b79a9e0%40posting.google.com
the secular religion of atheism has a bloody history
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1121400956.627638.38960%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherents
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
secular religiosity
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1157425453.315717.30590%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
1993 Michael Ruse: "for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a
kind of secular religion"
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1164729280.977099.300830%40h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
In grasping for a non-oxymoronic interpretation of this thread's
title, I can say that I do believe that the word "faith" is useful and
can be used to signify something that is unique and has meaning, and
that the term need not be defined in such a way as to make it
inherently religious (though it would also apply to certain instances
of the religious variety). In other words, I do believe that you can
have faith with out religion or "spirituality" of any kind.
If you mean, "can you have a secular religion", then I guess you could
just ignore the oxymoronic fact of it and make up something and say it
means that, but I'm not sure why you'd want to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: can there be a secular faith? |
29 Jan 2007 09:54:04 PM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 9:58 am, Joshua E. <n...@available.net> wrote:
In grasping for a non-oxymoronic interpretation of this thread's
title, I can say that I do believe that the word "faith" is useful and
can be used to signify something that is unique and has meaning, and
that the term need not be defined in such a way as to make it
inherently religious (though it would also apply to certain instances
of the religious variety). In other words, I do believe that you can
have faith with out religion or "spirituality" of any kind.
If you mean, "can you have a secular religion", then I guess you could
just ignore the oxymoronic fact of it and make up something and say it
means that, but I'm not sure why you'd want to.
Do you disagree with any of this Ruse?:
Ruse, Michael. 13 February 1993. Speech at 1993 Annual Meeting of
the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, at the symposium
"The New Antievolutionism"
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm
Certainly, historically, that if you look at, say,
evolutionary theory, and of course this was brought
out I think rather nicely by the talk just before me,
it's certainly been the case that evolution has
functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly with
elements akin to a secular religion. Those of us
who teach philosophy of religion always say there's
no way of defining religion by a neat, necessary and
sufficient condition. The best that you can do is list
a number of characteristics, some of which all
religions have, and none of which any religion,
whatever or however you sort of put it. And
certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past,
and I think also in the present, for many
evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something
with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a
secular religion.
I think, for instance, of the most famous family in the
history of evolution, namely, the Huxleys. I think of
Thomas Henry Huxley, the grandfather, and of
Julian Huxley, the grandson. Certainly, if you read
Thomas Henry Huxley, when he's in full flight,
there's no question but that for Huxley at some very
important level, evolution and science generally, but
certainly evolution in particular, is functioning a bit
as a kind of secular religion. Interestingly, Huxley--
and I've gone through his own lectures, I've gone
through two complete sets of lecture notes that
Huxley gave to his students-- Huxley never talked
about evolution when he was actually teaching. He
kept evolution for affairs like this, and when he was
talking at a much more popular sort of level.
Certainly, though, as I say, for Thomas Henry
Huxley, I don't think there's any question but that
evolution functioned, at a level, as a kind of secular
religion.
And there's no question whatsoever that for Julian
Huxley, when you read _Evolution, the Modern
Synthesis_, that Julian Huxley saw evolution as a
kind of progressive thing upwards. I think Julian
Huxley was certainly an atheist, but he was at the
same time a kind of neo-vitalist, and he bound this
up with his science. If you look both at his printed
stuff, and if you go down to Rice University which
has got all his private papers, again and again in the
letters, it comes through very strongly that for Julian
Huxley evolution was functioning as a kind of
secular religion.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////
Huxley's sermons have exegesis of god's holy scriptures
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1157035607.079463.274980%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
secular religiosity
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1157425453.315717.30590%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
"Huxley never talked about evolution when he was actually teaching"
'evolution' needed to make sense of biology?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7nibqu%24o0l%241%40pale-
rider.INS.CWRU.Edu
legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution'
http://www.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Can anybody think of data that would lead a devout materialist to
cease
to [1923 J. Huxley]"reject any explanation which proceeds... by
miracles"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.
990818214806.410371A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua E." |
|
| Title: Re: can there be a secular faith? |
30 Jan 2007 02:58:00 AM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2007 19:54:04 -0800, wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:58 am, Joshua E. <n...@available.net> wrote:
In grasping for a non-oxymoronic interpretation of this thread's
title, I can say that I do believe that the word "faith" is useful and
can be used to signify something that is unique and has meaning, and
that the term need not be defined in such a way as to make it
inherently religious (though it would also apply to certain instances
of the religious variety). In other words, I do believe that you can
have faith with out religion or "spirituality" of any kind.
If you mean, "can you have a secular religion", then I guess you could
just ignore the oxymoronic fact of it and make up something and say it
means that, but I'm not sure why you'd want to.
Do you disagree with any of this Ruse?:
Ruse, Michael. 13 February 1993. Speech at 1993 Annual Meeting of
the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, at the symposium
"The New Antievolutionism"
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm
Certainly, historically, that if you look at, say,
evolutionary theory, and of course this was brought
out I think rather nicely by the talk just before me,
it's certainly been the case that evolution has
functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly with
elements akin to a secular religion. Those of us
who teach philosophy of religion always say there's
no way of defining religion by a neat, necessary and
sufficient condition. The best that you can do is list
a number of characteristics, some of which all
religions have, and none of which any religion,
whatever or however you sort of put it. And
certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past,
and I think also in the present, for many
evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something
with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a
secular religion.
I think, for instance, of the most famous family in the
history of evolution, namely, the Huxleys. I think of
Thomas Henry Huxley, the grandfather, and of
Julian Huxley, the grandson. Certainly, if you read
Thomas Henry Huxley, when he's in full flight,
there's no question but that for Huxley at some very
important level, evolution and science generally, but
certainly evolution in particular, is functioning a bit
as a kind of secular religion. Interestingly, Huxley--
and I've gone through his own lectures, I've gone
through two complete sets of lecture notes that
Huxley gave to his students-- Huxley never talked
about evolution when he was actually teaching. He
kept evolution for affairs like this, and when he was
talking at a much more popular sort of level.
Certainly, though, as I say, for Thomas Henry
Huxley, I don't think there's any question but that
evolution functioned, at a level, as a kind of secular
religion.
And there's no question whatsoever that for Julian
Huxley, when you read _Evolution, the Modern
Synthesis_, that Julian Huxley saw evolution as a
kind of progressive thing upwards. I think Julian
Huxley was certainly an atheist, but he was at the
same time a kind of neo-vitalist, and he bound this
up with his science. If you look both at his printed
stuff, and if you go down to Rice University which
has got all his private papers, again and again in the
letters, it comes through very strongly that for Julian
Huxley evolution was functioning as a kind of
secular religion.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////
Huxley's sermons have exegesis of god's holy scriptures
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1157035607.079463.274980%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
secular religiosity
http://groups.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1157425453.315717.30590%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
"Huxley never talked about evolution when he was actually teaching"
'evolution' needed to make sense of biology?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7nibqu%24o0l%241%40pale-
rider.INS.CWRU.Edu
legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution'
http://www.google.com/groups?
selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Can anybody think of data that would lead a devout materialist to
cease
to [1923 J. Huxley]"reject any explanation which proceeds... by
miracles"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.
990818214806.410371A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
I think the only reason people try to catagorize evolution as a
"religion" is because many religions have problems with the idea, and
so it's often set in opposition to it, and after that it's a target
for attack.
There are parts of the way the academic and scientific community
operates that are somewhat vulnerable to criticism along the same
lines that someone might criticise religion. I wouldn't call
evolution a religion, though -- that's just stretching.
On the other hand, the scientific community does have its politics:
evolution is not the only sacred cow team of medical researchers
cannot really, for instance, research and publish findings that show
that second-hand smoke was not, in fact, a cause of death or disease
in any significant way; it'd be career suicide.
This whole phenomenon was detailed back in the 1960's in this work
(which should really be a core text for any student of science):
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3nd Ed.
Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN 0-226-45808-3
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: can there be a secular faith? |
29 Jan 2007 03:55:25 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2007 06:12:02 -0800, wrote:
Stalin was evil, Hitler too, and
they killed millions, irrespective of what they themselves
believed.
Both Stalin and Hitler were atheists.
Back into the killfile with you, you dishonest loon.
<plonk>
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: bin Laden decries "President Clinton's immoral acts" |
25 Jan 2007 07:12:58 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:17:16 -0800, dford3 wrote:
Does anyone here think...
David Ford has *any neurons left?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The problem with defending the purity of the English
language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse
*****. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English
has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
- James D. Nicoll
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
