| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
02 Nov 2005 08:51:53 AM |
| Object: |
Life After Darwin |
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/morgan5.html
My Life After Darwin
by John R Morgan, MD
Like most people, I never really bought the idea that life just
spontaneously developed out of nowhere, and then humans came from fish
or whatever.
It just didn't make sense.
A man named William Dembski with a PhD in mathematics from the
University of Chicago and a PhD in philosophy from the University of
Illinois has developed one good explanation why I always felt this way.
Let's say that you go to see the carving of Confederate heroes on
Stone Mountain right outside of Atlanta. Even though you didn't
actually see anyone perform the carving, you can infer that a designer
made the images. Now if you go to the back of the mountain and see
various amorphous shapes (although they are statistically as improbable
as the carving), you assume that they were randomly formed by erosion.
I know what you are thinking. This is basic common sense.
Unfortunately, however, we live in a time where common sense must be
justified; hence, Dembski is creating mathematical models to test the
validity of inferring design from something that is improbable and
specific. He hopes to prove that life falls into the category of
intelligent design.
I laud his efforts but in a way it is a sad commentary on our society.
Another man, Berkley law professor Phillip Johnson, has criticized the
intellectual leaps of faith necessary to accept evolution as a
life-creating force (leaps that I was never convinced to take). Johnson
argues that Darwinism has ceased to be a scientific theory and is now a
tautology that conveniently explains everything in nature. Although
Darwin himself operated within the context of the scientific method by
giving examples of empirical observations that would refute his
hypothesis, modern-day evolutionists entertain no such claims. Their
position is derived from a presupposed metaphysical belief that God
cannot exist.
As Johnson points out, in 1859 when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species
(actually entitled The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection;
or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life), the
fossil record was relatively incomplete. Darwin predicted that further
examination of fossils would demonstrate slow gradual change in living
organisms. Paleontologists have since found the abrupt appearance of
new organisms followed by long periods of static existence before
abrupt distinction.
The pattern of life as portrayed by the fossil record prompted Nobel
Prize-winning scientist, Francis Crick (he co-discovered DNA), to
suggest that space aliens must have visited earth at different times
bringing new species. Even the guy who discovered DNA has doubts about
evolution!
(Crick is actually an interesting fellow. He signed the "Resolution in
Scientific Freedom" with 49 other scientists noting that left-wing
institutions are censuring and punishing some scientists for
politically incorrect research.)
In Darwin's time it was also believed that cells were made of simple
vitalistic goo that contained life. Molecular biology has since
revealed that even the most primitive organisms contain amazingly
complex, interdependent parts. Micheal Behe, a professor of biological
sciences at Lehigh University, has adduced the concept of irreducible
complexity that challenges the logic of natural selection driving the
creation of complicated mechanisms with multiple independent parts.
(How can a sophisticated structure like a wing develop piecemeal if its
only functions in its completed form?)
My personal intellectual journey with Darwinism began at the University
of Georgia as an undergraduate. I majored in microbiology (graduating
1st in my class of roughly 5,000 students in 1991) and did non-human
genetic cloning research. I was overwhelmed with the diversity of life
and the power of genetics. In fact, I came to understand that genes
really matter. At the same time, I didn't buy the weak little theory
of survival of the fittest creating life.
I saw intraspecies change like bacterial anti-biotic resistance
(microevolution) but I needed missing-link evidence (macroevolution).
No one could give it to me.
I sincerely resented my professors conflating my skepticism in
Darwinism with irrational anti-intellectualism. I loved science and
truly respected the power of DNA. I just didn't think they had proven
how life was created.
I began reading everything I could get my hands on about evolution. I
put aside my biology textbooks that presented evolution as a
universally accepted law and started devouring the primary writings of
the modern-day evolution experts. It was at this point that I realized
that millions of students were being taught bad science for religious
and political reasons.
I also learned that a potentially internecine civil war was raging
within the Darwinian Nation.
On one side were the strict constructionists led by Richard Dawkins of
Oxford University in England. Dawkins was more like a religious zealot
than a political ideologue. He had long since accepted the fundamental
primacy of survival of the fittest, and was applying its logical
corollaries to human behavior.
On the other side were left wing ideologues led primarily by the
brilliant but ruthless Stephen Jay Gould. Gould, a self proclaimed
Marxist, loved the metaphysical liberation and culturally transforming
power of Darwinism. He despised, however, "the universal acid of
natural selection ... reducing human cultural change to the Darwinian
algorithm."
Basically, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
Remember, leftists like Gould require a worldview where human behavior
is 100% culturally conditioned; and here was Dawkins stating that
culture itself was an extension of human genes. (At this point I should
note that Dawkins is not a right winger, and received the Humanist of
the Year Award in 1996)
Gould viciously attacked the "ultra-Darwinists."
In a perfidious stab in the back to those committed to keeping "the
divine foot out of the door" (to borrow from another left-wing
ideologue, Richard C. Lewontin) Gould proclaimed, "Darwin is dead!" He
went on to attack the inadequacy of natural selection to explain the
complexity of life. He also cogently argued that the fossil evidence
did not support slow gradual change.
He proposed a new theory of (macro)evolution that he called punctuated
equilibrium. Basically, he suggested that (macro)evolution must have
occurred in quick spurts not captured by the fossil record. In
addition, he attempted to down play the importance of survival of the
fittest. Using his talented literary skills, he painted the world of
biological change as a non-threatening nebulous impression. He
fashioned himself an "evolutionary pluralist."
Now what was a confused young student to do?
I knew Darwin had stated that any reliance on macro mutations (or
saltations as he called them) would cause him to reject his theory of
evolution because it is not plausible; and here was Gould asking me to
accept (macro)evolution based on some unknown rapid genetic change,
basically a macro mutation. (Phillip Johnson has argued that punctuated
equilibrium is a euphemism for miracle)
I also didn't trust Gould. His primary concern seemed to be
maintaining the leftist moral code of life rather than the scientific
understanding of life.
I also couldn't buy Dawkin's historical narrative of life. The
power of Darwinism rested in its claim to a plausible mechanism (which
Gould destroyed) and its claim to a process without intentionallity.
Dawkins was writing about "selfish genes." How could the substrate of
evolution (DNA) be selfish and at the same time be without intention?
In addition, I was learning about other mechanisms of genetic
inheritance called genomic imprinting. Without going into detail, the
evolutionists were touting this phenomenon as a genetic "battle of the
sexes." Again, they were asking me to accept Darwinism because DNA
changed without purpose while simultaneously rejoicing that female DNA
held a grudge against male DNA (I hope to fully describe the
inconsistencies in logic of genomic imprinting and natural selection in
another setting).
Basically, I came to realize that Dawkins and Gould were not the
sophisticated atheists they wanted to be. They actually had faith in a
god - the DNA molecule. They seemed to believe that it was
omnipotent. To Dawkins it was a selfish god. To Gould it was an
egalitarian god.
Personally, I decided to pass on worshipping the double helix. No, sir,
I decided to keep the Christian faith of my ancestors.
But maybe it wasn't actually free will that brought me to my
decision. Maybe it was determined by the genes God gave me.
John R. Morgan, MD, is a practicing physician in Atlanta.
.
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
02 Nov 2005 09:20:11 PM |
|
|
On 2005-11-02 11:26:28 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
good theology is as logical as good science
What are the features of good theology?
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"My bible is accurate where it needs to be." --Earl "duke" Webber
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 05:01:32 AM |
|
|
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005110219200875249%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
On 2005-11-02 11:26:28 -0800, Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
said:
good theology is as logical as good science
What are the features of good theology?
They can be expressed as an equation, as follows:
Inherited Text + Psychological Need + Rationalisation = New Text
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 09:52:23 AM |
|
|
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:2005110219200875249%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
On 2005-11-02 11:26:28 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
good theology is as logical as good science
What are the features of good theology?
It should present a self-consistent system and at least SOME practical
applications (i.e. liturgy, sacraments, theurgy).
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 10:18:52 AM |
|
|
On 2005-11-03 07:52:23 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
655321 < > wrote in
news:2005110219200875249%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
On 2005-11-02 11:26:28 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
good theology is as logical as good science
What are the features of good theology?
It should present a self-consistent system and at least SOME practical
applications (i.e. liturgy, sacraments, theurgy).
What's practical about liturgy, sacraments, and theurgy?
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"My bible is accurate where it needs to be." --Earl "duke" Webber
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 01:06:59 PM |
|
|
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005110308184916807%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
On 2005-11-03 07:52:23 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:2005110219200875249%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
On 2005-11-02 11:26:28 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
good theology is as logical as good science
What are the features of good theology?
It should present a self-consistent system and at least SOME practical
applications (i.e. liturgy, sacraments, theurgy).
What's practical about liturgy, sacraments, and theurgy?
It keeps the brethren entertained. It is like a combination of sci-fi
literature and stand-up routines. Some people get to write the stuff and
some get to perform it. In Greek Orthodox masses the performance includes
lots of singing, so you get to tell the stories and sing as well.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 09:39:37 PM |
|
|
On 2005-11-03 11:06:59 -0800, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> said:
"655321" < > wrote in message
news:2005110308184916807%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
On 2005-11-03 07:52:23 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
655321 < > wrote in
news:2005110219200875249%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
On 2005-11-02 11:26:28 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
good theology is as logical as good science
What are the features of good theology?
It should present a self-consistent system and at least SOME practical
applications (i.e. liturgy, sacraments, theurgy).
What's practical about liturgy, sacraments, and theurgy?
It keeps the brethren entertained. It is like a combination of sci-fi
literature and stand-up routines. Some people get to write the stuff and
some get to perform it. In Greek Orthodox masses the performance includes
lots of singing, so you get to tell the stories and sing as well.
regards
Milan
And, as was stated elsewhere, it gets some people paid.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 10:40:08 AM |
|
|
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> said:
On 2005-11-03 07:52:23 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:2005110219200875249%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
On 2005-11-02 11:26:28 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
good theology is as logical as good science
What are the features of good theology?
It should present a self-consistent system and at least SOME practical
applications (i.e. liturgy, sacraments, theurgy).
What's practical about liturgy, sacraments, and theurgy?
They are ready sources of income for those in a position to sell their
performance of the associated rituals.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 11:51:35 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in
news:00fkm1hlgbp0prp2hniiqmms3cpprbmkm9@4ax.com:
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> said:
On 2005-11-03 07:52:23 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:2005110219200875249%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
On 2005-11-02 11:26:28 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
good theology is as logical as good science
What are the features of good theology?
It should present a self-consistent system and at least SOME
practical
applications (i.e. liturgy, sacraments, theurgy).
What's practical about liturgy, sacraments, and theurgy?
They are ready sources of income for those in a position to sell their
performance of the associated rituals.
Sometimes, though, if you really want income, take up the non-liturgical
route of selling young-earth creationism to the suckers. It's far more
profitable, though it involves a very deliberate fraud to de it well
enough to make the big bucks.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 09:39:04 PM |
|
|
On 2005-11-03 08:40:08 -0800, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> said:
655321 < > said:
On 2005-11-03 07:52:23 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
655321 < > wrote in
news:2005110219200875249%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
On 2005-11-02 11:26:28 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
good theology is as logical as good science
What are the features of good theology?
It should present a self-consistent system and at least SOME practical
applications (i.e. liturgy, sacraments, theurgy).
What's practical about liturgy, sacraments, and theurgy?
They are ready sources of income for those in a position to sell their
performance of the associated rituals.
--- Jim07D5
Ah. Redistribution of wealth, then, from the poor to the powerful.
Got it.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 11:50:09 PM |
|
|
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:2005110308184916807%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
On 2005-11-03 07:52:23 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:2005110219200875249%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
On 2005-11-02 11:26:28 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
good theology is as logical as good science
What are the features of good theology?
It should present a self-consistent system and at least SOME practical
applications (i.e. liturgy, sacraments, theurgy).
What's practical about liturgy, sacraments, and theurgy?
Um, spiritual and emotional healing, even physical healing. Liturgy and
sacraments also have positive effects on the community outside of the
church buildings in which they occur.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 12:04:25 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:2005110308184916807%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
What's practical about liturgy, sacraments, and theurgy?
Um, spiritual and emotional healing, even physical healing. Liturgy and
sacraments also have positive effects on the community outside of the
church buildings in which they occur.
As long as the recipient believes the bs, it can do wonders. Really.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 11:19:09 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131084265.468067.162260
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:2005110308184916807%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
What's practical about liturgy, sacraments, and theurgy?
Um, spiritual and emotional healing, even physical healing. Liturgy and
sacraments also have positive effects on the community outside of the
church buildings in which they occur.
As long as the recipient believes the bs, it can do wonders. Really.
And as long as you believe it to be BS, it will do you no good whatever,
thus confirming your belief that it's BS.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 12:21:55 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131084265.468067.162260
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
As long as the recipient believes the bs, it can do wonders. Really.
And as long as you believe it to be BS, it will do you no good whatever,
thus confirming your belief that it's BS.
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a theist.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 10:42:22 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128514.946250.21970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131084265.468067.162260 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
As long as the recipient believes the bs, it can do wonders.
Really.
And as long as you believe it to be BS, it will do you no good
whatever, thus confirming your belief that it's BS.
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a theist.
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS all the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 11:13:30 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128514.946250.21970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a theist.
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS all the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Oh, but I am an objective atheist. If you care to show me objectively
that it's not BS, I'll change my mind.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
05 Nov 2005 02:07:25 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131167610.715204.95000
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128514.946250.21970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a theist.
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS all
the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Oh, but I am an objective atheist. If you care to show me objectively
that it's not BS, I'll change my mind.
You have to open your eyes before you can see.
And honestly, I don't care if you do or not, as long as you don't get in
my hair about it. But you see, fundy atheists cannot abide anyone
actually believing. They HAVE to convert them to atheism if they can, or
else put them down as inferior. You see otherwise, they couldn't feel
superior to "those others." You see that's really what fundyism is all
about. It's not true religion. It's not even objectivity. It's just
narcissism.
Now a narcissist's god is real, all right. He can see it in the mirror.
But its omniscience is to be questioned, I think!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
05 Nov 2005 02:38:22 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131167610.715204.95000
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128514.946250.21970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a theist.
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS all
the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Oh, but I am an objective atheist. If you care to show me objectively
that it's not BS, I'll change my mind.
You have to open your eyes before you can see.
Actually, you mean that I would have to turn off my objectivity. No
thanks.
And honestly, I don't care if you do or not, as long as you don't get in
my hair about it. But you see, fundy atheists cannot abide anyone
actually believing. They HAVE to convert them to atheism if they can, or
else put them down as inferior. You see otherwise, they couldn't feel
superior to "those others." You see that's really what fundyism is all
about. It's not true religion. It's not even objectivity. It's just
narcissism.
Now a narcissist's god is real, all right. He can see it in the mirror.
But its omniscience is to be questioned, I think!
So, instead of offering to show me objectively that it's not BS, you
have to attack me.
Ok, I see how it works.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
06 Nov 2005 02:06:21 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131223101.977463.261210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131167610.715204.95000 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128514.946250.21970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a
theist.
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS
all
the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Oh, but I am an objective atheist. If you care to show me
objectively that it's not BS, I'll change my mind.
You have to open your eyes before you can see.
Actually, you mean that I would have to turn off my objectivity. No
thanks.
And honestly, I don't care if you do or not, as long as you don't get
in my hair about it. But you see, fundy atheists cannot abide anyone
actually believing. They HAVE to convert them to atheism if they
can, or else put them down as inferior. You see otherwise, they
couldn't feel superior to "those others." You see that's really what
fundyism is all about. It's not true religion. It's not even
objectivity. It's just narcissism.
Now a narcissist's god is real, all right. He can see it in the
mirror. But its omniscience is to be questioned, I think!
So, instead of offering to show me objectively that it's not BS, you
have to attack me.
I don't have to attack you. But fundy atheists see my very existence as
an attack upon them. Just as fundy creationists see my existence as an
attack upon THEM.
Ok, I see how it works.
I'm not sure you do.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
06 Nov 2005 08:22:57 PM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2005 12:38:22 -0800, "J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131167610.715204.95000
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128514.946250.21970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a theist.
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS all
the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Oh, but I am an objective atheist. If you care to show me objectively
that it's not BS, I'll change my mind.
You have to open your eyes before you can see.
Actually, you mean that I would have to turn off my objectivity. No
thanks.
And honestly, I don't care if you do or not, as long as you don't get in
my hair about it. But you see, fundy atheists cannot abide anyone
actually believing. They HAVE to convert them to atheism if they can, or
else put them down as inferior. You see otherwise, they couldn't feel
superior to "those others." You see that's really what fundyism is all
about. It's not true religion. It's not even objectivity. It's just
narcissism.
Now a narcissist's god is real, all right. He can see it in the mirror.
But its omniscience is to be questioned, I think!
So, instead of offering to show me objectively that it's not BS, you
have to attack me.
That's all he can do. He's a Christian bigot who imagines his
religion's vicious slanders about atheists are correct.
Every single sentence in the larger of the above paragraps was one of
those slanders.
Ok, I see how it works.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
07 Nov 2005 04:35:58 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:dhetm1df67hhpcpc6fc90qg61cduh22fd7@4ax.com:
On 5 Nov 2005 12:38:22 -0800, "J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131167610.715204.95000 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128514.946250.21970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a
theist.
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS
all
the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Oh, but I am an objective atheist. If you care to show me
objectively that it's not BS, I'll change my mind.
You have to open your eyes before you can see.
Actually, you mean that I would have to turn off my objectivity. No
thanks.
And honestly, I don't care if you do or not, as long as you don't
get in my hair about it. But you see, fundy atheists cannot abide
anyone actually believing. They HAVE to convert them to atheism if
they can, or else put them down as inferior. You see otherwise,
they couldn't feel superior to "those others." You see that's
really what fundyism is all about. It's not true religion. It's not
even objectivity. It's just narcissism.
Now a narcissist's god is real, all right. He can see it in the
mirror. But its omniscience is to be questioned, I think!
So, instead of offering to show me objectively that it's not BS, you
have to attack me.
That's all he can do. He's a Christian bigot who imagines his
religion's vicious slanders about atheists are correct.
What vicious slanders about atheists?
Every single sentence in the larger of the above paragraps was one of
those slanders.
It was your fundamentalism that I was attacking, not your atheism.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
06 Nov 2005 08:21:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:07:25 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131167610.715204.95000
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128514.946250.21970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a theist.
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS all
the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Oh, but I am an objective atheist. If you care to show me objectively
that it's not BS, I'll change my mind.
You have to open your eyes before you can see.
Standard Christian *****.
And honestly, I don't care if you do or not, as long as you don't get in
my hair about it. But you see, fundy atheists cannot abide anyone
actually believing. They HAVE to convert them to atheism if they can, or
A deliberate lie. Keep them withing the confines of your religion and
nobody will care. TAlk about them as though they were real in the real
world outside your religion and you get called on it.
Nobody is trying to "convert" anybody to atheism - that would be
impossible for you brainwashed god-bots who can't think outside the
box.
Lying about "fundy atheists" as you do, just confirms what a jerk you
are.
else put them down as inferior. You see otherwise, they couldn't feel
Another deliberate lie.
superior to "those others." You see that's really what fundyism is all
And another.
about. It's not true religion. It's not even objectivity. It's just
narcissism.
Your projecting Christianity - and not just fundamentalism.
Now a narcissist's god is real, all right. He can see it in the mirror.
But its omniscience is to be questioned, I think!
And you wonder why we know you're a lying , socuioipathic Christian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
07 Nov 2005 04:34:39 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:oaetm15bqgfcvcljult6e2cl99ic6q2vj7@4ax.com:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:07:25 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131167610.715204.95000 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128514.946250.21970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a
theist.
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS all
the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Oh, but I am an objective atheist. If you care to show me
objectively that it's not BS, I'll change my mind.
You have to open your eyes before you can see.
Standard Christian *****.
And honestly, I don't care if you do or not, as long as you don't get
in my hair about it. But you see, fundy atheists cannot abide anyone
actually believing. They HAVE to convert them to atheism if they can,
or
A deliberate lie. Keep them withing the confines of your religion and
nobody will care. TAlk about them as though they were real in the real
world outside your religion and you get called on it.
My religion does not have "confines" and I refuse to BE confined by your
definitions. So call me on it. And then go away and mumble whatever
incantations to your non-god will make you happy.
Nobody is trying to "convert" anybody to atheism - that would be
impossible for you brainwashed god-bots who can't think outside the
box.
Gee...I'm not trying to convert you FROM atheism. That would be
impossible for you brainwashed fundy atheists who can't think outside the
box.
Lying about "fundy atheists" as you do, just confirms what a jerk you
are.
I'm not lying. I'm just pointing out a very objective reality about your
behaviour. Which you demonstrate over and over again.
else put them down as inferior. You see otherwise, they couldn't feel
Another deliberate lie.
No, another observation of FACT.
superior to "those others." You see that's really what fundyism is
all
And another.
Now YOU are lying.
about. It's not true religion. It's not even objectivity. It's just
narcissism.
Your projecting Christianity - and not just fundamentalism.
No. I'm quite honest that I am a Christian. But you are a
fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are rarely honest, no matter what the
underlying religious or philosophical basis of their fundamentalism.
Now a narcissist's god is real, all right. He can see it in the
mirror.
But its omniscience is to be questioned, I think!
And you wonder why we know you're a lying , socuioipathic Christian.
Uh, because you're self-deluded fundamentalist narcissists who know very
little that's actually real?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 11:52:05 PM |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2005 21:13:30 -0800, "J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128514.946250.21970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a theist.
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS all the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Oh, but I am an objective atheist. If you care to show me objectively
that it's not BS, I'll change my mind.
He can't do that. He epitomises all that is bad about
priests/ministers/etc: he imagines his box applies to the real world
and cannot cope with people who don't accept that. Instead of
acknowledgingtheir actualposition, he resorts to his religion's
vicious slanders about atheists and goes ape ***** when he is not
treated with the respect he imagines is due to him becase of his
position.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
05 Nov 2005 02:09:03 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:ruhom1pt5k2ssmogu7acopt9fhqk5vd535@4ax.com:
On 4 Nov 2005 21:13:30 -0800, "J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128514.946250.21970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a
theist.
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS all
the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Oh, but I am an objective atheist. If you care to show me objectively
that it's not BS, I'll change my mind.
He can't do that. He epitomises all that is bad about
At this stage, I would not do it if I could (and I'm not saying I can't--
YOU are).
priests/ministers/etc: he imagines his box applies to the real world
and cannot cope with people who don't accept that. Instead of
acknowledgingtheir actualposition, he resorts to his religion's
vicious slanders about atheists and goes ape ***** when he is not
treated with the respect he imagines is due to him becase of his
position.
As opposed to the respect YOU demand because of YOUR position. Not just
respect but actual capitulation and adulation is what you narcissist
fundies all demand, whether your Christian, Atheist, Muslim or Hindu,
it's always the same god in the end. The one you see in the mirror.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 10:59:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 04:42:22 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128514.946250.21970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131084265.468067.162260 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
As long as the recipient believes the bs, it can do wonders.
Really.
And as long as you believe it to be BS, it will do you no good
whatever, thus confirming your belief that it's BS.
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a theist.
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS all the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Then don't spout *****, whining hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
05 Nov 2005 02:04:38 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:01fom1tu93kk8v1nedmbds8dfa2c0rg0j1@4ax.com:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 04:42:22 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128514.946250.21970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131084265.468067.162260 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
As long as the recipient believes the bs, it can do wonders.
Really.
And as long as you believe it to be BS, it will do you no good
whatever, thus confirming your belief that it's BS.
Oh, if only I could believe that BS is not BS! I could be a theist.
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS all the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Then don't spout *****, whining hypocrite.
Take your own advice. I don't CARE that you don't accept my religious
beliefs and think they are *****. You are simply wrong. I know it
and you don't. So what? I meet lots of ignorant people all the time.
And some of them are even more arrogant about it than you are. But most
of them are fundies of one sort or another.
Being objective, I'm aware that my religious beliefs may be somewhat
special to me. Which is why I DON'T want them imposed on others as you
would do with yours.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
06 Nov 2005 08:17:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:04:38 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS all the
time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Then don't spout *****, whining hypocrite.
Take your own advice. I don't CARE that you don't accept my religious
beliefs and think they are *****. You are simply wrong. I know it
and you don't. So what? I meet lots of ignorant people all the time.
And some of them are even more arrogant about it than you are. But most
of them are fundies of one sort or another.
Here's a clue, lying sociopath: YOU POSTED YOUR STUPIDITY ABOUT
THEOLOGY EYCAPPLYING IN THE REAL WORLD to an atheist newsgroup.
Being objective, I'm aware that my religious beliefs may be somewhat
special to me. Which is why I DON'T want them imposed on others as you
would do with yours.
Then why talk about them on an atheist newsgroup as though they were
real?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
07 Nov 2005 04:30:32 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:88etm1d44ri1ptss8r07k7t4igvb07rlfm@4ax.com:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:04:38 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
And, if you could stop labelling things you don't believe as BS all
the time, you might even be able to be an OBJECTIVE atheist.
Then don't spout *****, whining hypocrite.
Take your own advice. I don't CARE that you don't accept my religious
beliefs and think they are *****. You are simply wrong. I know it
and you don't. So what? I meet lots of ignorant people all the time.
And some of them are even more arrogant about it than you are. But
most of them are fundies of one sort or another.
Here's a clue, lying sociopath: YOU POSTED YOUR STUPIDITY ABOUT
THEOLOGY EYCAPPLYING IN THE REAL WORLD to an atheist newsgroup.
Being objective, I'm aware that my religious beliefs may be somewhat
special to me. Which is why I DON'T want them imposed on others as
you would do with yours.
Then why talk about them on an atheist newsgroup as though they were
real?
I don't believe I have EVER posted directly to alt.atheism. I may have,
at some time, but I certainly don't do it on purpose and when I do, I'm
very aware of the hypersensitivity of fundie atheists and try to avoid
controversial topics. But when a thread gets crossposted there from
alt.talk.creationism, then all bets are off. Creationism is not only bad
science, it's abysmally bad theology, too. And I critique it from both
viewpoints.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 07:15:03 PM |
|
|
On 2005-11-04 09:19:09 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131084265.468067.162260
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
655321 < > wrote in
news:2005110308184916807%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
What's practical about liturgy, sacraments, and theurgy?
Um, spiritual and emotional healing, even physical healing. Liturgy and
sacraments also have positive effects on the community outside of the
church buildings in which they occur.
As long as the recipient believes the bs, it can do wonders. Really.
And as long as you believe it to be BS, it will do you no good
whatever, thus confirming your belief that it's BS.
Makes me wish I could turn belief on and off at will... but that's
logically impossible.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"My bible is accurate where it needs to be." --Earl "duke" Webber
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 10:43:27 PM |
|
|
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:2005110417150016807%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
On 2005-11-04 09:19:09 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131084265.468067.162260 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:2005110308184916807%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom:
What's practical about liturgy, sacraments, and theurgy?
Um, spiritual and emotional healing, even physical healing.
Liturgy and sacraments also have positive effects on the community
outside of the church buildings in which they occur.
As long as the recipient believes the bs, it can do wonders.
Really.
And as long as you believe it to be BS, it will do you no good
whatever, thus confirming your belief that it's BS.
Makes me wish I could turn belief on and off at will... but that's
logically impossible.
Uh, what's logic got to do with mental and emotional states? Sure, we're
CAPABLE of logic, but we are rarely actually ruled by it. I'm not even
sure it's a good thing to be ruled by it.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
