| 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: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 08:29:48 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
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.
I choose beliefs on the basis of identifying reality, not on the "basis"
of feeling better.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 07:16:19 PM |
|
|
On 2005-11-03 21:50:09 -0800, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> said:
655321 < > wrote in
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?
Um, spiritual and emotional healing, even physical healing.
Well, that's how they market it anyway.
Liturgy and sacraments also have positive effects on the community
outside of the church buildings in which they occur.
Such as? Got a control group to demonstrate that the *net* effects are
positive and not neutral or even negative?
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"My bible is accurate where it needs to be." --Earl "duke" Webber
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 12:19:54 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:50:09 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
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.
Only in the imagination of the self-deluded religious sociopath.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 11:20:05 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:cbvlm117aqqej1636gfa3loj5s036jouoo@4ax.com:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:50:09 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
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.
Only in the imagination of the self-deluded religious sociopath.
So THAT is what's wrong with you?
I mean you fundy atheists are as comical as the creationists. You get
into a high dudgeon if anyone expresses a religion different from your
own.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 01:29:51 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:cbvlm117aqqej1636gfa3loj5s036jouoo@4ax.com:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:50:09 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
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.
Only in the imagination of the self-deluded religious sociopath.
So THAT is what's wrong with you?
I mean you fundy atheists are as comical as the creationists. You
get into a high dudgeon if anyone expresses a religion different
from your own.
Well, no, we get pissed when people tell us things are
facts when they are not or refuse to be logical faced
with facts.
We see religious morons voting for religious morons
destroying Amrica and science education in America.
We HAVE to care.
Religion, as usual, is proving to be a poison.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 10:57:53 PM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in news:11mncokopjiosb8
@corp.supernews.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:cbvlm117aqqej1636gfa3loj5s036jouoo@4ax.com:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:50:09 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
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.
Only in the imagination of the self-deluded religious sociopath.
So THAT is what's wrong with you?
I mean you fundy atheists are as comical as the creationists. You
get into a high dudgeon if anyone expresses a religion different
from your own.
Well, no, we get pissed when people tell us things are
facts when they are not or refuse to be logical faced
with facts.
Gee, so do I, when people tell me things are NOT facts when I know they
ARE facts.
We see religious morons voting for religious morons
destroying Amrica and science education in America.
We HAVE to care.
Yes, well care by not being a religious moron yourself.
Religion, as usual, is proving to be a poison.
It's dogmatism of the variety that insists that everyone has to believe
the same that's the poison.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 05:44:20 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:cbvlm117aqqej1636gfa3loj5s036jouoo@4ax.com:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:50:09 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
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 <Dipthot Dipthot@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 log ical 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 practic al 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.
Only in the imagination of the self-deluded religious sociopath.
So THAT is what's wrong with you?
I mean you fundy atheists are as comical as the creationists. You
get into a high dudgeon if anyone expresses a religion different
from your own.
Well, no, we get pissed when people tell us things are
facts when they are not
You mean like:
"Experts are not in disagreement evolution is the mechanism
by which life as we know has been created." -- wbarwell
e
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 11:55:40 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:20:05 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:cbvlm117aqqej1636gfa3loj5s036jouoo@4ax.com:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:50:09 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
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.
Only in the imagination of the self-deluded religious sociopath.
So THAT is what's wrong with you?
Only in the imagination of the self-deluded religious sociopath like
you.
I mean you fundy atheists are as comical as the creationists. You get
into a high dudgeon if anyone expresses a religion different from your
own.
A stupid lie.
I do no such thing. I call idiots like you, idiots when they make
real-world claims that their religion's doctrines, theology etc apply
in the real world.
Your remarks about your theology outside the confines of your religion
are as ridiculous as a creationist's theology and doctrines in the
real world outside his.
Just like creationists you need to learn where your religion stops
and the real world where it is one of hundreds, and its deity-belief
and theology merely one of hundreds.
Get that beam out of your own eye, before lying about others.
There's no such thing as a "fundy atheist" outside your ignorant
bigotry.
That would be no different than fundy "not believing in Santa Claus".
But then you already know this because you have been corrected many
times.
What does "not believing in Santa Claus" make motivate you to do?
Why is it so hard to grasp that not believing in your deity is no
different than that, in the real world outside your religion?
You and your religion invent positions we don't have based on
presumptions that don't even apply outside your religion, to the point
of slander.
But you miss the obvious ones: like your doctrines about your deity
and its theology being irrelevant to us.
And instead of acknowledging this you resort to lies about "fundy
atheists".
We know your ignorant bigotry is doctrinal. But that doesn't excuse
the vicious slanders your doctrines tell you about us.
You have many times demonstrated that you are a bigoted sociopath,
because you insist your doctrinal beliefs, your deity and your
theology apply in the real world.
While you have the "nice-guy" veneer you go ape ***** when called after
stupidly talking about your deity as though it were real to an atheist
audience, pretend your theology applies outside your religion, and
have your slanders about atheists corrected.
One would have expected better behaviour from somebody who claims he
is a priest.
We find you and your vicious slanders about us much as you would like
being called a child-molester because you are a priest.
Is this really so hard to understand?
It makes you a sanctimonious, lying hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 10:56:01 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:q47nm1d45lusgffbsnpavolsdakj1kf2m9@4ax.com:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:20:05 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:cbvlm117aqqej1636gfa3loj5s036jouoo@4ax.com:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:50:09 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
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.
Only in the imagination of the self-deluded religious sociopath.
So THAT is what's wrong with you?
Only in the imagination of the self-deluded religious sociopath like
you.
I mean you fundy atheists are as comical as the creationists. You get
into a high dudgeon if anyone expresses a religion different from your
own.
A stupid lie.
There goes my irony meter!
I do no such thing. I call idiots like you, idiots when they make
real-world claims that their religion's doctrines, theology etc apply
in the real world.
You call people idiots because your emotions are engaged.
Your remarks about your theology outside the confines of your religion
are as ridiculous as a creationist's theology and doctrines in the
real world outside his.
Yawn...
Just like creationists you need to learn where your religion stops
and the real world where it is one of hundreds, and its deity-belief
and theology merely one of hundreds.
Yes, and just like the creationists YOU need to learn where your religion
stops and the real world starts.
Get that beam out of your own eye, before lying about others.
There's no such thing as a "fundy atheist" outside your ignorant
bigotry.
More lies, but then what can I expect from fundies. They always lie,
even about their own religions.
That would be no different than fundy "not believing in Santa Claus".
But then you already know this because you have been corrected many
times.
Wrong. You're attacked me many times with your fundy atheist *****
which is comical because it's almost a carbon copy of the fundy <insert
name of religion here> *****. Just the names changed to protect the
guilty.
What does "not believing in Santa Claus" make motivate you to do?
Why is it so hard to grasp that not believing in your deity is no
different than that, in the real world outside your religion?
I don't give a ***** whether you believe in God or not, son. What I'm
objecting to is your attitude that makes you believe that anyone who
doesn't (dis)believe as you do is somehow an "idiot."
But feel free to take me and everyone you meet like me for idiots. In
the end you will find out that you've made a horrible mistake about that.
The idiocy, you see, will have been yours, since you allowed your
religious prejudice to guide you in making decisions about people that
were erroneous.
You and your religion invent positions we don't have based on
presumptions that don't even apply outside your religion, to the point
of slander.
Your "position" is transparent in your language. And I do not slander
you. You have made it clear what your "position" is. You're an atheist
bigot. The only difference between you and an <insert name of religion
here> bigot is the nature of your religious beliefs.
But you miss the obvious ones: like your doctrines about your deity
and its theology being irrelevant to us.
But they clearly are NOT irrelevant to you. You get all bent out of
shape if I even express them!
And instead of acknowledging this you resort to lies about "fundy
atheists".
They are not lies. And no amount of denying the fact is going to change
the fact that some atheists are as bigoted as those they attack. MOST
atheists are not fundies. They don't give a damn about my religion, one
way or the other. But you DO give a damn. You have given a number of
them right here in these echoes.
We know your ignorant bigotry is doctrinal. But that doesn't excuse
the vicious slanders your doctrines tell you about us.
I'm not slandering you. What has you in a high dudgeon is that I caught
you at your game.
You have many times demonstrated that you are a bigoted sociopath,
because you insist your doctrinal beliefs, your deity and your
theology apply in the real world.
You are also a liar. I have never insisted that my religious beliefs
necessarily apply to you. They do apply in the real world, though.
That's a FACT and you can squeeze all you want without changing that
FACT.
While you have the "nice-guy" veneer you go ape ***** when called after
stupidly talking about your deity as though it were real to an atheist
audience, pretend your theology applies outside your religion, and
have your slanders about atheists corrected.
Yes, because you go all ape-***** when called after stupidly talking about
my deity is NOT real and pretending that your atheism applies to reality.
One would have expected better behaviour from somebody who claims he
is a priest.
One would have expected better behaviour from someone who claims to be
able to think objectively.
We find you and your vicious slanders about us much as you would like
being called a child-molester because you are a priest.
Right....try that one. It's popular. Of course I haven't actually
slandered you. I have merely observed your pathological behaviour when
confronted with someone who doesn't immediately bow down to your atheist
false anti-god.
Is this really so hard to understand?
Yes, it's very difficult to understand how you can pretend with a
straight face to not care about my religion all the while expressing a
HUGE emotional reaction to the mere fact that I'm not afraid to say that
I believe.
It makes you a sanctimonious, lying hypocrite.
Projecting again, I see.
The fundy mindset is interesting. And by no means restricted to any one
religious or philosophical belief. Ultimately it's rooted in narcissism.
The "I am God and everyone else is a lower being" syndrome.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 11:01:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:52:23 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
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).
And how are these practical in the real world outside your religion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 01:08:20 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:phgkm19sjfae8oca45l26i20rit54h6qiv@4ax.com...
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:52:23 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
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).
And how are these practical in the real world outside your religion?
That's like asking George Lucas how Star Wars is practical outside a cinema.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 05:40:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 19:08:20 -0000, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:phgkm19sjfae8oca45l26i20rit54h6qiv@4ax.com...
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:52:23 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
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).
And how are these practical in the real world outside your religion?
That's like asking George Lucas how Star Wars is practical outside a cinema.
Except that George Lucas doesn't claim it is.
He made the claim, not I. I merely called him on it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 11:11:56 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:phgkm19sjfae8oca45l26i20rit54h6qiv@4ax.com:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:52:23 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
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).
And how are these practical in the real world outside your religion?
Why do they have to be? Is something "good" only if it has practical
applications to _everyone_ (which is impossible, of course)? Or is there
some threshold? How many people does something have to have pracitcal
applications for, to be "good"? Or is it just a matter of deciding _who_ it
has to have practical applications for, to be "good"? And if so, why do you
think *you* should be the one to get to decide?
(You don't need to answer. We know the answer already.)
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 01:12:39 PM |
|
|
"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97035D934E8B4taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.64...
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:phgkm19sjfae8oca45l26i20rit54h6qiv@4ax.com:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:52:23 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
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).
And how are these practical in the real world outside your religion?
Why do they have to be? Is something "good" only if it has practical
applications to _everyone_ (which is impossible, of course)? Or is there
some threshold? How many people does something have to have pracitcal
applications for, to be "good"? Or is it just a matter of deciding _who_
it
has to have practical applications for, to be "good"? And if so, why do
you
think *you* should be the one to get to decide?
Of course not; as long as it is fun and entartaining for those in the
business, it is good enough. It doesnt have to have any use for outsiders.
Theologians obviously get a kick out speculating about gods and stuff, and
priests get a kick out of repeating the stuff, and the audience at church
seem to be entertained by the stuff (this is more controversial,
though -when I used to go to church most everybody seemed bored to death),
that's why they keep going.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 11:18:49 AM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:phgkm19sjfae8oca45l26i20rit54h6qiv@4ax.com:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:52:23 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
It should present a self-consistent system and at least SOME practical
applications (i.e. liturgy, sacraments, theurgy).
And how are these practical in the real world outside your religion?
Why do they have to be? Is something "good" only if it has practical
applications to _everyone_ (which is impossible, of course)? Or is there
some threshold? How many people does something have to have pracitcal
applications for, to be "good"? Or is it just a matter of deciding _who_ it
has to have practical applications for, to be "good"? And if so, why do you
think *you* should be the one to get to decide?
(You don't need to answer. We know the answer already.)
***** has many practical applications....but it's still *****.
As long as Dave keeps this fact in mind when discussing it with us, I
have no problem with his intense study of *****.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 11:53:01 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131038329.503233.278160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:phgkm19sjfae8oca45l26i20rit54h6qiv@4ax.com:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:52:23 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
It should present a self-consistent system and at least SOME
practical applications (i.e. liturgy, sacraments, theurgy).
And how are these practical in the real world outside your
religion?
Why do they have to be? Is something "good" only if it has practical
applications to _everyone_ (which is impossible, of course)? Or is
there some threshold? How many people does something have to have
pracitcal applications for, to be "good"? Or is it just a matter of
deciding _who_ it has to have practical applications for, to be
"good"? And if so, why do you think *you* should be the one to get to
decide?
(You don't need to answer. We know the answer already.)
***** has many practical applications....but it's still *****.
As long as Dave keeps this fact in mind when discussing it with us, I
have no problem with his intense study of *****.
And it's "*****" because you say so, pontificating ex cathedra from
under your tinfoil hat?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 12:00:44 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131038329.503233.278160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
***** has many practical applications....but it's still *****.
As long as Dave keeps this fact in mind when discussing it with us, I
have no problem with his intense study of *****.
And it's "*****" because you say so, pontificating ex cathedra from
under your tinfoil hat?
It's aluminum foil, can't get the tin variety any more.
No, it's bs because you can't show that it's not.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 11:22:49 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131084044.894999.245150
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131038329.503233.278160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
***** has many practical applications....but it's still *****.
As long as Dave keeps this fact in mind when discussing it with us,
I
have no problem with his intense study of *****.
And it's "*****" because you say so, pontificating ex cathedra from
under your tinfoil hat?
It's aluminum foil, can't get the tin variety any more.
No, it's bs because you can't show that it's not.
Apparently not to you. That's all right. I'm in no hurry to bang my
head against a brick wall. Generally I'm in these echoes to do battle
with the heresy of creationism.
Some of the creationists seem to think that you atheist would benefit
from THEIR brand of fundamentalism rather than the kind you practice in
alt.atheism. Personally, I don't want either of your religions in the
school science classes. I'd be perfectly happy if the teachers just
stuck to the science and didn't do religion at all. Not pro and not con.
Such discussions may have some relevance in a history course or a
philosophy course, but they are useless in a science course.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 12:28:29 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131084044.894999.245150
No, it's bs because you can't show that it's not.
Apparently not to you. That's all right. I'm in no hurry to bang my
head against a brick wall. Generally I'm in these echoes to do battle
with the heresy of creationism.
Must be difficult indeed to pass off BS as truth, when you run into
someone who is not gullible. Good think you realize the futility of
it.
Some of the creationists seem to think that you atheist would benefit
from THEIR brand of fundamentalism rather than the kind you practice in
alt.atheism. Personally, I don't want either of your religions in the
school science classes. I'd be perfectly happy if the teachers just
stuck to the science and didn't do religion at all. Not pro and not con.
Such discussions may have some relevance in a history course or a
philosophy course, but they are useless in a science course.
Perhaps if I had religion, I'd agree with your entire statement, but
you are lying about us....
Get some integrity. But to do that, you'll have to abandon faith
first.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 11:12:25 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128909.308481.225230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131084044.894999.245150
No, it's bs because you can't show that it's not.
Apparently not to you. That's all right. I'm in no hurry to bang my
head against a brick wall. Generally I'm in these echoes to do
battle with the heresy of creationism.
Must be difficult indeed to pass off BS as truth, when you run into
someone who is not gullible. Good think you realize the futility of
it.
Watch it! If you do try to pass off BS as truth with me, I will eat you
for breakfast. I don't normally argue with atheists, but fundy atheism
can actually be detrimental to my efforts to keep the religious heresy of
creationism out of the schools. That's because you all too often attempt
to simply substitute your own religious heresy of theirs. I don't want
ANY religious heresies in those school science courses, not even my own.
Some of the creationists seem to think that you atheist would benefit
from THEIR brand of fundamentalism rather than the kind you practice
in alt.atheism. Personally, I don't want either of your religions in
the school science classes. I'd be perfectly happy if the teachers
just stuck to the science and didn't do religion at all. Not pro and
not con. Such discussions may have some relevance in a history course
or a philosophy course, but they are useless in a science course.
Perhaps if I had religion, I'd agree with your entire statement, but
you are lying about us....
No I'm not. I'm simply observing you. Most atheists don't give a damn
if I have a religion or not. But a certain class of you get's all bent
out of shape if you're even confronted with the fact that someone has
faith in God. And you react in ways that show that you're just as
bigoted about that as the fundies are about your atheism.
Get some integrity. But to do that, you'll have to abandon faith
first.
And there we have it. The quintessential expression of fundy bigotry.
Only the members of the "true faith" have integrity. Everyone else is
inferior and nasty.
Try your BS on someone who isn't intelligent.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 11:29:40 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128909.308481.225230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131084044.894999.245150
No, it's bs because you can't show that it's not.
Apparently not to you. That's all right. I'm in no hurry to bang my
head against a brick wall. Generally I'm in these echoes to do
battle with the heresy of creationism.
Must be difficult indeed to pass off BS as truth, when you run into
someone who is not gullible. Good think you realize the futility of
it.
Watch it! If you do try to pass off BS as truth with me, I will eat you
for breakfast. I don't normally argue with atheists, but fundy atheism
can actually be detrimental to my efforts to keep the religious heresy of
creationism out of the schools. That's because you all too often attempt
to simply substitute your own religious heresy of theirs. I don't want
ANY religious heresies in those school science courses, not even my own.
I don't care about religious heresies.
But like you, I do care about keeping non-science out of science
classes in public schools.
Some of the creationists seem to think that you atheist would benefit
from THEIR brand of fundamentalism rather than the kind you practice
in alt.atheism. Personally, I don't want either of your religions in
the school science classes. I'd be perfectly happy if the teachers
just stuck to the science and didn't do religion at all. Not pro and
not con. Such discussions may have some relevance in a history course
or a philosophy course, but they are useless in a science course.
Perhaps if I had religion, I'd agree with your entire statement, but
you are lying about us....
No I'm not. I'm simply observing you. Most atheists don't give a damn
if I have a religion or not. But a certain class of you get's all bent
out of shape if you're even confronted with the fact that someone has
faith in God. And you react in ways that show that you're just as
bigoted about that as the fundies are about your atheism.
I don't give a damn if you have religion or not. I just want you to
recognize that it's BS, but you can't do that, because you believe the
BS.
if you do indeed ever catch me spouting BS, be sure to let me know!
Could be that I have some false beliefs myself...
Get some integrity. But to do that, you'll have to abandon faith
first.
And there we have it. The quintessential expression of fundy bigotry.
Only the members of the "true faith" have integrity. Everyone else is
inferior and nasty.
Try your BS on someone who isn't intelligent.
Huh, I don't recall mentioning anything about being inferior or nasty.
Do you really think that your lack of integrity makes you inferior and
nasty? I don't...
But if you do, maybe you ought to do something about it, if you can.
I dont' think you can, nor do I think you will, and I don't think less
of you because of it. It's human nature to believe BS.
I don't have faith, unfortunately you can't admit it....because you do
have faith.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
05 Nov 2005 02:23:58 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131168580.569772.229920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131128909.308481.225230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131084044.894999.245150
No, it's bs because you can't show that it's not.
Apparently not to you. That's all right. I'm in no hurry to bang
my head against a brick wall. Generally I'm in these echoes to do
battle with the heresy of creationism.
Must be difficult indeed to pass off BS as truth, when you run into
someone who is not gullible. Good think you realize the futility
of it.
Watch it! If you do try to pass off BS as truth with me, I will eat
you for breakfast. I don't normally argue with atheists, but fundy
atheism can actually be detrimental to my efforts to keep the
religious heresy of creationism out of the schools. That's because
you all too often attempt to simply substitute your own religious
heresy of theirs. I don't want ANY religious heresies in those
school science courses, not even my own.
I don't care about religious heresies.
And I'm not saying you should, though caring about them is part of MY job
description.
But like you, I do care about keeping non-science out of science
classes in public schools.
Yes, I think we can agree on this.
Some of the creationists seem to think that you atheist would
benefit from THEIR brand of fundamentalism rather than the kind
you practice in alt.atheism. Personally, I don't want either of
your religions in the school science classes. I'd be perfectly
happy if the teachers just stuck to the science and didn't do
religion at all. Not pro and not con. Such discussions may have
some relevance in a history course or a philosophy course, but
they are useless in a science course.
Perhaps if I had religion, I'd agree with your entire statement,
but you are lying about us....
No I'm not. I'm simply observing you. Most atheists don't give a
damn if I have a religion or not. But a certain class of you get's
all bent out of shape if you're even confronted with the fact that
someone has faith in God. And you react in ways that show that
you're just as bigoted about that as the fundies are about your
atheism.
I don't give a damn if you have religion or not. I just want you to
recognize that it's BS, but you can't do that, because you believe the
BS.
Because it's not BS. And I have enough evidence in my personal
experience to convince me of that. But I'm in no hurry to convince you
or anyone else. I learned a long time ago that these things happen when
they're meant to not when I want them to.
if you do indeed ever catch me spouting BS, be sure to let me know!
Could be that I have some false beliefs myself...
Get some integrity. But to do that, you'll have to abandon faith
first.
And there we have it. The quintessential expression of fundy
bigotry. Only the members of the "true faith" have integrity.
Everyone else is inferior and nasty.
Try your BS on someone who isn't intelligent.
Huh, I don't recall mentioning anything about being inferior or nasty.
Do you really think that your lack of integrity makes you inferior and
nasty? I don't...
Implying that what I believe is lies is certainly implying that I'm
inferior.
But if you do, maybe you ought to do something about it, if you can.
I dont' think you can, nor do I think you will, and I don't think less
of you because of it. It's human nature to believe BS.
I don't have faith, unfortunately you can't admit it....because you do
have faith.
Actually, I don't have a problem with people not having faith, unless
they tell me they DO have it, or try to put me down for having it.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
05 Nov 2005 02:48:11 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131168580.569772.229920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I don't give a damn if you have religion or not. I just want you to
recognize that it's BS, but you can't do that, because you believe the
BS.
Because it's not BS. And I have enough evidence in my personal
experience to convince me of that. But I'm in no hurry to convince you
or anyone else. I learned a long time ago that these things happen when
they're meant to not when I want them to.
Well, that's the nature of BS. It sneaks in on it's own when you're
not expecting it, when your defenses are down. Been there, done that,
as they say.
if you do indeed ever catch me spouting BS, be sure to let me know!
Could be that I have some false beliefs myself...
really, I'm serious.
Get some integrity. But to do that, you'll have to abandon faith
first.
And there we have it. The quintessential expression of fundy
bigotry. Only the members of the "true faith" have integrity.
Everyone else is inferior and nasty.
Try your BS on someone who isn't intelligent.
Huh, I don't recall mentioning anything about being inferior or nasty.
Do you really think that your lack of integrity makes you inferior and
nasty? I don't...
Implying that what I believe is lies is certainly implying that I'm
inferior.
Only if you happen to value honesty. If you do value it above that
which you have faith in, then you may have some issues to sort out. If
not, then no problem.
But it's you who must decide. I don't think you're inferior, I just
think you're a liar. Most or all folks are liars, I suppose I am to
some extent....finding the lies can be difficult and unpleasant.
But if you do, maybe you ought to do something about it, if you can.
I dont' think you can, nor do I think you will, and I don't think less
of you because of it. It's human nature to believe BS.
I don't have faith, unfortunately you can't admit it....because you do
have faith.
Actually, I don't have a problem with people not having faith, unless
they tell me they DO have it, or try to put me down for having it.
I define faith as "the art of self deception"....so if you are content
to have decieved yourself, that's fine. If you value honesty, then you
might indeed see yourself being put down for having faith. If you
value whatever it is you have faith in more than you value honesty,
then I don't see how you could feel put down for having faith.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
06 Nov 2005 02:09:33 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131223691.728973.62280
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131168580.569772.229920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I don't give a damn if you have religion or not. I just want you to
recognize that it's BS, but you can't do that, because you believe
the
BS.
Because it's not BS. And I have enough evidence in my personal
experience to convince me of that. But I'm in no hurry to convince
you
or anyone else. I learned a long time ago that these things happen
when
they're meant to not when I want them to.
Well, that's the nature of BS. It sneaks in on it's own when you're
not expecting it, when your defenses are down. Been there, done that,
as they say.
if you do indeed ever catch me spouting BS, be sure to let me know!
Could be that I have some false beliefs myself...
really, I'm serious.
Get some integrity. But to do that, you'll have to abandon faith
first.
And there we have it. The quintessential expression of fundy
bigotry. Only the members of the "true faith" have integrity.
Everyone else is inferior and nasty.
Try your BS on someone who isn't intelligent.
Huh, I don't recall mentioning anything about being inferior or
nasty.
Do you really think that your lack of integrity makes you inferior
and
nasty? I don't...
Implying that what I believe is lies is certainly implying that I'm
inferior.
Only if you happen to value honesty. If you do value it above that
which you have faith in, then you may have some issues to sort out. If
not, then no problem.
See, that's your problem. You only value your own version of honesty.
You won't value mine.
But it's you who must decide. I don't think you're inferior, I just
think you're a liar. Most or all folks are liars, I suppose I am to
some extent....finding the lies can be difficult and unpleasant.
Some of the lies are necessary. Ask any man with a fat wife.
But if you do, maybe you ought to do something about it, if you can.
I dont' think you can, nor do I think you will, and I don't think
less
of you because of it. It's human nature to believe BS.
I don't have faith, unfortunately you can't admit it....because you
do
have faith.
Actually, I don't have a problem with people not having faith, unless
they tell me they DO have it, or try to put me down for having it.
I define faith as "the art of self deception"....so if you are content
So your definition of faith is faulty to begin with.
to have decieved yourself, that's fine. If you value honesty, then you
might indeed see yourself being put down for having faith. If you
value whatever it is you have faith in more than you value honesty,
then I don't see how you could feel put down for having faith.
Yes, I do. And I see that your notion of what faith is is the same as
what the fundies think it is (i.e. blind belief in a ritualistic
formula). I use ritual, but not in that fashion.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
06 Nov 2005 03:01:53 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131223691.728973.62280
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Implying that what I believe is lies is certainly implying that I'm
inferior.
Only if you happen to value honesty. If you do value it above that
which you have faith in, then you may have some issues to sort out. If
not, then no problem.
See, that's your problem. You only value your own version of honesty.
You won't value mine.
Yeah, I don't value partial honesty. As far as I can tell, that's what
your version is.
But it's you who must decide. I don't think you're inferior, I just
think you're a liar. Most or all folks are liars, I suppose I am to
some extent....finding the lies can be difficult and unpleasant.
Some of the lies are necessary. Ask any man with a fat wife.
Bad example....my fat wife happens to be quite beautiful. As I tell
her often.
I define faith as "the art of self deception"....so if you are content
So your definition of faith is faulty to begin with.
Well, of course it will appear faulty to anyone who has faith! who
would admit to self-deception?
but that's really all faith is. And it's a natural human ability,
perhaps it has evolved because it helps us to decieve others. to get
what we want.
to have decieved yourself, that's fine. If you value honesty, then you
might indeed see yourself being put down for having faith. If you
value whatever it is you have faith in more than you value honesty,
then I don't see how you could feel put down for having faith.
Yes, I do. And I see that your notion of what faith is is the same as
what the fundies think it is (i.e. blind belief in a ritualistic
formula). I use ritual, but not in that fashion.
I just told you what my notion of faith is....you don't need to tell me
it's something different.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
06 Nov 2005 03:22:48 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131308996.523225.20870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131223691.728973.62280 @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Implying that what I believe is lies is certainly implying that
I'm inferior.
Only if you happen to value honesty. If you do value it above that
which you have faith in, then you may have some issues to sort out.
If not, then no problem.
See, that's your problem. You only value your own version of
honesty. You won't value mine.
Yeah, I don't value partial honesty. As far as I can tell, that's
what your version is.
But it's you who must decide. I don't think you're inferior, I
just think you're a liar. Most or all folks are liars, I suppose I
am to some extent....finding the lies can be difficult and
unpleasant.
Some of the lies are necessary. Ask any man with a fat wife.
Bad example....my fat wife happens to be quite beautiful. As I tell
her often.
I'm sure she is. But how often do you tell her she's fat?
I define faith as "the art of self deception"....so if you are
content
So your definition of faith is faulty to begin with.
Well, of course it will appear faulty to anyone who has faith! who
would admit to self-deception?
Apparently not you!
but that's really all faith is. And it's a natural human ability,
perhaps it has evolved because it helps us to decieve others. to get
what we want.
Sigh....
to have decieved yourself, that's fine. If you value honesty, then
you might indeed see yourself being put down for having faith. If
you value whatever it is you have faith in more than you value
honesty, then I don't see how you could feel put down for having
faith.
Yes, I do. And I see that your notion of what faith is is the same
as what the fundies think it is (i.e. blind belief in a ritualistic
formula). I use ritual, but not in that fashion.
I just told you what my notion of faith is....you don't need to tell
me it's something different.
Yawn....
Self-deception can really ONLY be accomplished by clinging to a ritual
formula.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
06 Nov 2005 05:24:36 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131308996.523225.20870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
But it's you who must decide. I don't think you're inferior, I
just think you're a liar. Most or all folks are liars, I suppose I
am to some extent....finding the lies can be difficult and
unpleasant.
Some of the lies are necessary. Ask any man with a fat wife.
Bad example....my fat wife happens to be quite beautiful. As I tell
her often.
I'm sure she is. But how often do you tell her she's fat?
When she mentions that she's fat, I agree....there's no need to lie
about facts.
I define faith as "the art of self deception"....so if you are
content
So your definition of faith is faulty to begin with.
Well, of course it will appear faulty to anyone who has faith! who
would admit to self-deception?
Apparently not you!
I do catch myself at it occasionally.
but that's really all faith is. And it's a natural human ability,
perhaps it has evolved because it helps us to decieve others. to get
what we want.
Sigh....
Well, there you go. I'm always open to different explanations of why
things are the way they are. Eventually I may figure out some of it,
but I won't quit looking just because I've found a comfortable
position.
to have decieved yourself, that's fine. If you value honesty, then
you might indeed see yourself being put down for having faith. If
you value whatever it is you have faith in more than you value
honesty, then I don't see how you could feel put down for having
faith.
Yes, I do. And I see that your notion of what faith is is the same
as what the fundies think it is (i.e. blind belief in a ritualistic
formula). I use ritual, but not in that fashion.
I just told you what my notion of faith is....you don't need to tell
me it's something different.
Yawn....
Self-deception can really ONLY be accomplished by clinging to a ritual
formula.
No, it can happen lots of ways. One way is to accept the answers you
have discovered as being the truth. If you stop looking for
alternate explanations, you'll never figure out that you are mistaken.
Having a lot invested in a particular "truth" is a sure fire way to
keep yourself from discovery. Religion is a great example of this.
How can a creationist ever understand how evolution works if he has
faith that his storybook is correct?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
07 Nov 2005 04:28:31 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131319476.486616.152830
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131308996.523225.20870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
But it's you who must decide. I don't think you're inferior, I
just think you're a liar. Most or all folks are liars, I suppose
I
am to some extent....finding the lies can be difficult and
unpleasant.
Some of the lies are necessary. Ask any man with a fat wife.
Bad example....my fat wife happens to be quite beautiful. As I tell
her often.
I'm sure she is. But how often do you tell her she's fat?
When she mentions that she's fat, I agree....there's no need to lie
about facts.
I define faith as "the art of self deception"....so if you are
content
So your definition of faith is faulty to begin with.
Well, of course it will appear faulty to anyone who has faith! who
would admit to self-deception?
Apparently not you!
I do catch myself at it occasionally.
but that's really all faith is. And it's a natural human ability,
perhaps it has evolved because it helps us to decieve others. to get
what we want.
Sigh....
Well, there you go. I'm always open to different explanations of why
things are the way they are. Eventually I may figure out some of it,
but I won't quit looking just because I've found a comfortable
position.
to have decieved yourself, that's fine. If you value honesty,
then
you might indeed see yourself being put down for having faith.
If
you value whatever it is you have faith in more than you value
honesty, then I don't see how you could feel put down for having
faith.
Yes, I do. And I see that your notion of what faith is is the same
as what the fundies think it is (i.e. blind belief in a ritualistic
formula). I use ritual, but not in that fashion.
I just told you what my notion of faith is....you don't need to tell
me it's something different.
Yawn....
Self-deception can really ONLY be accomplished by clinging to a ritual
formula.
No, it can happen lots of ways. One way is to accept the answers you
have discovered as being the truth. If you stop looking for
alternate explanations, you'll never figure out that you are mistaken.
Having a lot invested in a particular "truth" is a sure fire way to
keep yourself from discovery. Religion is a great example of this.
How can a creationist ever understand how evolution works if he has
faith that his storybook is correct?
See, that's a ritual formula, though. It's not actually FAITH. Faith
would say that all is well and God is sovereign no matter if the book is
correct or not. And then would proceed to find out what is actually true
about creation or evolution.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
07 Nov 2005 05:18:28 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131319476.486616.152830
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Self-deception can really ONLY be accomplished by clinging to a ritual
formula.
No, it can happen lots of ways. One way is to accept the answers you
have discovered as being the truth. If you stop looking for
alternate explanations, you'll never figure out that you are mistaken.
Having a lot invested in a particular "truth" is a sure fire way to
keep yourself from discovery. Religion is a great example of this.
How can a creationist ever understand how evolution works if he has
faith that his storybook is correct?
See, that's a ritual formula, though. It's not actually FAITH. Faith
would say that all is well and God is sovereign no matter if the book is
correct or not. And then would proceed to find out what is actually true
about creation or evolution.
And would faith say that all is well and God may or may not be
sovereign, and it sure would be interesting to find out if maybe this
God thing is actually just a figment of my imagination?
I kind of doubt it...what do you think?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
08 Nov 2005 11:00:45 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131405508.671559.118230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131319476.486616.152830 @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Self-deception can really ONLY be accomplished by clinging to a
ritual formula.
No, it can happen lots of ways. One way is to accept the answers
you have discovered as being the truth. If you stop looking for
alternate explanations, you'll never figure out that you are
mistaken.
Having a lot invested in a particular "truth&q | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
