| 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: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
08 Nov 2005 11:13:51 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"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" 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?
Faith would not concern itself with what cannot be scientifically
disproven. Fundy atheists, on the other hand, like fundy theists are
intent on scientific support for their (a)theologies.
It appears to me that faith does not allow the scientific investigation
of what it holds dear...whether it be human religious behavior, or
evolution.
You really do have the ID methodology down pat, although you apply it
to a different area.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
09 Nov 2005 01:36:18 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131470031.025079.274630
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"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" 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?
Faith would not concern itself with what cannot be scientifically
disproven. Fundy atheists, on the other hand, like fundy theists are
intent on scientific support for their (a)theologies.
It appears to me that faith does not allow the scientific investigation
of what it holds dear...whether it be human religious behavior, or
evolution.
Faith should not be used as a substitute for scientific investigation.
You really do have the ID methodology down pat, although you apply it
to a different area.
Oh, I understand their methodology. It's very clearly priestcraft, not
science, no matter how they dress it up! And I object to that. My
theological ideas I label quite clearly AS such and I don't expect anyone
to treat them as science. I do try to keep my theology and my science
separate that way, though my theology could and would dictate what types
of science I might pursue sometimes and how I would apply it, simply
because science, while it is good at telling us what is, is not very good
at telling us what should be.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
09 Nov 2005 02:33:18 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1131470031.025079.274630
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Faith would not concern itself with what cannot be scientifically
disproven. Fundy atheists, on the other hand, like fundy theists are
intent on scientific support for their (a)theologies.
It appears to me that faith does not allow the scientific investigation
of what it holds dear...whether it be human religious behavior, or
evolution.
Faith should not be used as a substitute for scientific investigation.
I quite agree. But it seems to me that faith will stop any desire for
scientific investigation into the way things are, in any subject that a
person has faith in. I am endlessly curious, so I don't have
faith...for fear that it would kill my curiousity.
You really do have the ID methodology down pat, although you apply it
to a different area.
Oh, I understand their methodology. It's very clearly priestcraft, not
science, no matter how they dress it up! And I object to that. My
theological ideas I label quite clearly AS such and I don't expect anyone
to treat them as science. I do try to keep my theology and my science
separate that way, though my theology could and would dictate what types
of science I might pursue sometimes and how I would apply it, simply
because science, while it is good at telling us what is, is not very good
at telling us what should be.
ah....but what should be probably depends a ot on what is, and without
careful scientific investigation into what is, we may end up with a
very perverse what should be.
Seeing what other theologians have come up with for what should be,
based on obviously false ideas about what is, leads me to believe that
the utmost caution is required in our assumptions about what is. Any
of these assumptions or assertions that are based on an unreliable
fact-finding method such as revelation are bound to lead us astray.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
10 Nov 2005 06:08:15 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131525198.825045.4250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131470031.025079.274630 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Faith would not concern itself with what cannot be scientifically
disproven. Fundy atheists, on the other hand, like fundy theists
are intent on scientific support for their (a)theologies.
It appears to me that faith does not allow the scientific
investigation of what it holds dear...whether it be human religious
behavior, or evolution.
Faith should not be used as a substitute for scientific
investigation.
I quite agree. But it seems to me that faith will stop any desire for
scientific investigation into the way things are, in any subject that
a person has faith in. I am endlessly curious, so I don't have
faith...for fear that it would kill my curiousity.
You really do have the ID methodology down pat, although you apply
it to a different area.
Oh, I understand their methodology. It's very clearly priestcraft,
not science, no matter how they dress it up! And I object to that.
My theological ideas I label quite clearly AS such and I don't expect
anyone to treat them as science. I do try to keep my theology and my
science separate that way, though my theology could and would dictate
what types of science I might pursue sometimes and how I would apply
it, simply because science, while it is good at telling us what is,
is not very good at telling us what should be.
ah....but what should be probably depends a ot on what is, and without
careful scientific investigation into what is, we may end up with a
very perverse what should be.
Seeing what other theologians have come up with for what should be,
based on obviously false ideas about what is, leads me to believe that
the utmost caution is required in our assumptions about what is. Any
of these assumptions or assertions that are based on an unreliable
fact-finding method such as revelation are bound to lead us astray.
When it comes to scientific propositions, revelation should not provide
anything stronger than a hypothesis, since, if it's scientific, we should
then be able to test it, using the scientific method. Faith and blind
belief are actually opposites, though.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
10 Nov 2005 07:01:37 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131525198.825045.4250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Oh, I understand their methodology. It's very clearly priestcraft,
not science, no matter how they dress it up! And I object to that.
My theological ideas I label quite clearly AS such and I don't expect
anyone to treat them as science. I do try to keep my theology and my
science separate that way, though my theology could and would dictate
what types of science I might pursue sometimes and how I would apply
it, simply because science, while it is good at telling us what is,
is not very good at telling us what should be.
ah....but what should be probably depends a ot on what is, and without
careful scientific investigation into what is, we may end up with a
very perverse what should be.
Seeing what other theologians have come up with for what should be,
based on obviously false ideas about what is, leads me to believe that
the utmost caution is required in our assumptions about what is. Any
of these assumptions or assertions that are based on an unreliable
fact-finding method such as revelation are bound to lead us astray.
When it comes to scientific propositions, revelation should not provide
anything stronger than a hypothesis, since, if it's scientific, we should
then be able to test it, using the scientific method. Faith and blind
belief are actually opposites, though.
And if the revelation cannot be tested using scientific method, then it
should not be trusted at all.
Faith is merely untestable belief....and that's not really any
different than blind belief.
As I said, get some integrity...
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
11 Nov 2005 05:33:18 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131670897.739131.79630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131525198.825045.4250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Oh, I understand their methodology. It's very clearly
priestcraft, not science, no matter how they dress it up! And I
object to that. My theological ideas I label quite clearly AS such
and I don't expect anyone to treat them as science. I do try to
keep my theology and my science separate that way, though my
theology could and would dictate what types of science I might
pursue sometimes and how I would apply it, simply because science,
while it is good at telling us what is, is not very good at
telling us what should be.
ah....but what should be probably depends a ot on what is, and
without careful scientific investigation into what is, we may end
up with a very perverse what should be.
Seeing what other theologians have come up with for what should be,
based on obviously false ideas about what is, leads me to believe
that the utmost caution is required in our assumptions about what
is. Any of these assumptions or assertions that are based on an
unreliable fact-finding method such as revelation are bound to lead
us astray.
When it comes to scientific propositions, revelation should not
provide anything stronger than a hypothesis, since, if it's
scientific, we should then be able to test it, using the scientific
method. Faith and blind belief are actually opposites, though.
And if the revelation cannot be tested using scientific method, then
it should not be trusted at all.
Faith is merely untestable belief....and that's not really any
different than blind belief.
As I said, get some integrity...
SOD OFF, PILLOCK!
You have the soul of a mechano set.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
12 Nov 2005 09:32:41 PM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns970B9E3AA3650doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131670897.739131.79630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131525198.825045.4250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Oh, I understand their methodology. It's very clearly
priestcraft, not science, no matter how they dress it up! And I
object to that. My theological ideas I label quite clearly AS such
and I don't expect anyone to treat them as science. I do try to
keep my theology and my science separate that way, though my
theology could and would dictate what types of science I might
pursue sometimes and how I would apply it, simply because science,
while it is good at telling us what is, is not very good at
telling us what should be.
ah....but what should be probably depends a ot on what is, and
without careful scientific investigation into what is, we may end
up with a very perverse what should be.
Seeing what other theologians have come up with for what should be,
based on obviously false ideas about what is, leads me to believe
that the utmost caution is required in our assumptions about what
is. Any of these assumptions or assertions that are based on an
unreliable fact-finding method such as revelation are bound to lead
us astray.
When it comes to scientific propositions, revelation should not
provide anything stronger than a hypothesis, since, if it's
scientific, we should then be able to test it, using the scientific
method. Faith and blind belief are actually opposites, though.
And if the revelation cannot be tested using scientific method, then
it should not be trusted at all.
Faith is merely untestable belief....and that's not really any
different than blind belief.
As I said, get some integrity...
SOD OFF, PILLOCK!
You have the soul of a mechano set.
At the end of the day this is your only argument.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 04:55:50 PM |
|
|
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3tnqlcFtjqa5U1@individual.net:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns970B9E3AA3650doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131670897.739131.79630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131525198.825045.4250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Oh, I understand their methodology. It's very clearly
priestcraft, not science, no matter how they dress it up! And I
object to that. My theological ideas I label quite clearly AS
such
and I don't expect anyone to treat them as science. I do try to
keep my theology and my science separate that way, though my
theology could and would dictate what types of science I might
pursue sometimes and how I would apply it, simply because
science,
while it is good at telling us what is, is not very good at
telling us what should be.
ah....but what should be probably depends a ot on what is, and
without careful scientific investigation into what is, we may end
up with a very perverse what should be.
Seeing what other theologians have come up with for what should
be,
based on obviously false ideas about what is, leads me to believe
that the utmost caution is required in our assumptions about what
is. Any of these assumptions or assertions that are based on an
unreliable fact-finding method such as revelation are bound to
lead
us astray.
When it comes to scientific propositions, revelation should not
provide anything stronger than a hypothesis, since, if it's
scientific, we should then be able to test it, using the scientific
method. Faith and blind belief are actually opposites, though.
And if the revelation cannot be tested using scientific method, then
it should not be trusted at all.
Faith is merely untestable belief....and that's not really any
different than blind belief.
As I said, get some integrity...
SOD OFF, PILLOCK!
You have the soul of a mechano set.
At the end of the day this is your only argument.
Well, you see, I didn't think I NEEDED an argument to make a casual
comment on my personal beliefs.
But fundy atheists cannot abide anyone not of their religion and so they
START such arguments, even with people who agree with them on the subject
of evolution vs. creationism.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
13 Nov 2005 04:59:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:55:50 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
But fundy atheists cannot abide anyone not of their religion and so they
START such arguments, even with people who agree with them on the subject
of evolution vs. creationism.
Oldridge is lying again. He knows it was his inappropriate presuming
that bit bits of his religion were true. He can be perfectly
reasonable about evolution, but he shouldn't have made stupid remarks
about his theology etc doesn't know when talking about "practical
benefits of his theology etc" in the real world, on an atheist
newsgroup.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
14 Nov 2005 04:27:13 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:35hfn1p9njt9gi6ud996jfa5gg3ksige63@4ax.com:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:55:50 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
But fundy atheists cannot abide anyone not of their religion and so
they START such arguments, even with people who agree with them on the
subject of evolution vs. creationism.
Oldridge is lying again. He knows it was his inappropriate presuming
I'm NOT lying. YOU are. Like all fundies you have a lying tongue.
that bit bits of his religion were true. He can be perfectly
So it's appropriate for you to assume that YOUR religion is true but not
for me to do so about mine. Thanks for admitting your fundy double
standard.
reasonable about evolution, but he shouldn't have made stupid remarks
about his theology etc doesn't know when talking about "practical
benefits of his theology etc" in the real world, on an atheist
newsgroup.
Oh, alt.atheism is sacred to the non-god of the atheist fundamentalist,
is it? Then I would suggest that you set follow-ups to
alt.talk.creationism and leave it at that. Or make your precious
newsgroup a moderated one and then your moderator can remove all
references to religion. THAT will solve your problem.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
14 Nov 2005 04:57:56 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Oh, alt.atheism is sacred to the non-god of the atheist fundamentalist,
is it? Then I would suggest that you set follow-ups to
alt.talk.creationism and leave it at that. Or make your precious
newsgroup a moderated one and then your moderator can remove all
references to religion. THAT will solve your problem.
Nothing sacred here.....
but you might want to double check your replies to make sure they're
not crossposted to aa in future so you don't get harrassed by soulless
pillocks like me
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
15 Nov 2005 11:08:18 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:1132009076.636626.99290
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Oh, alt.atheism is sacred to the non-god of the atheist
fundamentalist,
is it? Then I would suggest that you set follow-ups to
alt.talk.creationism and leave it at that. Or make your precious
newsgroup a moderated one and then your moderator can remove all
references to religion. THAT will solve your problem.
Nothing sacred here.....
You SAY that, but when your idol is attacked you react just like it is
sacrred.
but you might want to double check your replies to make sure they're
not crossposted to aa in future so you don't get harrassed by soulless
pillocks like me
You couldn't actually HARRASS me if you tried.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
14 Nov 2005 05:35:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:35hfn1p9njt9gi6ud996jfa5gg3ksige63@4ax.com:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:55:50 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
But fundy atheists cannot abide anyone not of their religion and so
they START such arguments, even with people who agree with them on the
subject of evolution vs. creationism.
Oldridge is lying again. He knows it was his inappropriate presuming
I'm NOT lying. YOU are. Like all fundies you have a lying tongue.
Oh, the irony. There is no such thing as a fubdy atheist otsie your
deluded imagination.
that bit bits of his religion were true. He can be perfectly
So it's appropriate for you to assume that YOUR religion is true but not
for me to do so about mine. Thanks for admitting your fundy double
standard.
What "my religion", liar?
Is not-believing-in-pixies a religion on your planet, liar?
reasonable about evolution, but he shouldn't have made stupid remarks
about his theology etc doesn't know when talking about "practical
benefits of his theology etc" in the real world, on an atheist
newsgroup.
Oh, alt.atheism is sacred to the non-god of the atheist fundamentalist,
What "atheist fundamentalist", dishonest lying priest?
is it? Then I would suggest that you set follow-ups to
alt.talk.creationism and leave it at that. Or make your precious
I would suggest that you don't cross-post stupid things to an atheist
newsgroup, moron.
newsgroup a moderated one and then your moderator can remove all
references to religion. THAT will solve your problem.
The problem is assholes like you.
Don't talk about your religion as though its tenets, doctrines etc
were real, in the real world outside your religion. Especially when
you are cross-posting to an atheist newsgroup.
And don't lie about the reaction to your own stupidity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
15 Nov 2005 11:12:10 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:pg7in1tmefvpadrp9jfq8ljp3ktb4b1no2@4ax.com:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:35hfn1p9njt9gi6ud996jfa5gg3ksige63@4ax.com:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:55:50 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
But fundy atheists cannot abide anyone not of their religion and so
they START such arguments, even with people who agree with them on
the
subject of evolution vs. creationism.
Oldridge is lying again. He knows it was his inappropriate presuming
I'm NOT lying. YOU are. Like all fundies you have a lying tongue.
Oh, the irony. There is no such thing as a fubdy atheist otsie your
deluded imagination.
that bit bits of his religion were true. He can be perfectly
So it's appropriate for you to assume that YOUR religion is true but
not
for me to do so about mine. Thanks for admitting your fundy double
standard.
What "my religion", liar?
Is not-believing-in-pixies a religion on your planet, liar?
reasonable about evolution, but he shouldn't have made stupid remarks
about his theology etc doesn't know when talking about "practical
benefits of his theology etc" in the real world, on an atheist
newsgroup.
Oh, alt.atheism is sacred to the non-god of the atheist fundamentalist,
What "atheist fundamentalist", dishonest lying priest?
Any atheist who gets his shirt so in a knot that he can't stand the
thought of someone who doesn't share his anti-religious views is a fundy.
Not that many are, but they concentrate on internet forums and such
because, like all fundies, they tend to be a vocal lot.
is it? Then I would suggest that you set follow-ups to
alt.talk.creationism and leave it at that. Or make your precious
I would suggest that you don't cross-post stupid things to an atheist
newsgroup, moron.
I would suggest that you can't HELP crossposting stupid things to
alt.talk.creationism.
newsgroup a moderated one and then your moderator can remove all
references to religion. THAT will solve your problem.
The problem is assholes like you.
If *I* am a problem for you, then you are going to have a LOT of problems
in your life.
Don't talk about your religion as though its tenets, doctrines etc
were real, in the real world outside your religion. Especially when
you are cross-posting to an atheist newsgroup.
Why? Because you don't share my religion? Boo hoo!
And don't lie about the reaction to your own stupidity.
I don't. I see right through your double standard. Your reactions have
been TYPICAL fundy reactions, by the way. You are much more like the
religious fundies than you are like normal atheists.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
10 Nov 2005 06:10:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:08:15 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Faith and blind
belief are actually opposites, though.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha..........................................
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 12:02:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:22:49 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Some of the creationists seem to think that you atheist would benefit
from THEIR brand of fundamentalism rather than the kind you practice in
What "THEIR brand of fundamentalism", deliberately button-pushing,
lying hypocritical priest?
If you had any common sense or courtesy you would not get the reaction
you sometimes do.
Inthis caseit was for stupidly telling us that your theology etc had
practical applcations in the real world.
You need to lean the place of your religionin and its deity beliefs
inthe real world where it is merely one of hundreds, and not
substantively different. They're all special in the eyes of their
followers, and nobody would give atoss about them if they kept them to
themselves.
But you are just as bad as the fundie. You bverate them for their
doctrines. While insisting that your own apply to everybody and rudely
talking at them as though they did.
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.
What "religion", deliberately button pushing, lying hypocritical
priest?
Is not "believiing in Santa Claus" a religion too, according to your
wilful and bigoted ignrance?
BECAUSE THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE IN THE REAL WORLD.
What liars like you pretend is "fundy atheism" is the natural human
reaction to your own stupid rudeness. Whether you are a priest or a
fundy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 11:08:13 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:758nm15tua7hhuouddu12vvp9ic1ve6iic@4ax.com:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:22:49 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Some of the creationists seem to think that you atheist would benefit
from THEIR brand of fundamentalism rather than the kind you practice in
What "THEIR brand of fundamentalism", deliberately button-pushing,
lying hypocritical priest?
If you had any common sense or courtesy you would not get the reaction
you sometimes do.
To a fundy like you common sense and courtesy consist with agreeing with
everything you say.
Inthis caseit was for stupidly telling us that your theology etc had
practical applcations in the real world.
It does, but not in YOUR real world, which is a creation of your own
disordered imagination, wherein you are superior to other people on
account of your superior religion.
You need to lean the place of your religionin and its deity beliefs
inthe real world where it is merely one of hundreds, and not
substantively different. They're all special in the eyes of their
followers, and nobody would give atoss about them if they kept them to
themselves.
I could not have expressed your arrogant fundamentalism any better than
you have in your own words here. Thank you for demonstratinrg my case.
But you are just as bad as the fundie. You bverate them for their
doctrines. While insisting that your own apply to everybody and rudely
talking at them as though they did.
Actually, I DON'T think my own apply to everybody. I keep telling people
they have to wrestle their own angel. But you keep demanding to wrestle
mine. And that isn't gonna help you!
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.
What "religion", deliberately button pushing, lying hypocritical
priest?
Your religion, like that of all fundies is a brand of narcissism, but the
doctrines you express (God does not exist) are religious propositions,
just as doctrines such as (gods x, y and z exist) are religious
propositions. They are not scientific theories and cannot be tested by
the scientific method.
Is not "believiing in Santa Claus" a religion too, according to your
wilful and bigoted ignrance?
Actually, I DO believe in Santa Claus. Not the jolly elf with the red
suit that commerce has invented but the REAL St. Nicholas, bishop of Myra
who got known for his generosity to children because on numerous
occasions he dug into his own personal coffers to prevent them being sold
into slavery by their parents' creditors (as was the law in that time and
place). Of course this couldn't have happened in YOUR "real world"
because Christianity has no effect on it, right?
BECAUSE THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE IN THE REAL WORLD.
What liars like you pretend is "fundy atheism" is the natural human
reaction to your own stupid rudeness. Whether you are a priest or a
fundy.
First of all, I do not start the rudeness in this echo. It's always some
poor atheist who is all bent out of shape because someone DARED to
mention God in his august presence. What a crock of MERDE!
Take your self-righteous hypocrisy, stamp it on coffe tin lids, fold them
until they are all sharp corners and give yourself an enema with them.
I'm tired of even TRYING to be nice to you. You don't WANT nice. In
typical fundy fashion you want a fight and you want to play the martyr.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
04 Nov 2005 11:49:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 05:08:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:758nm15tua7hhuouddu12vvp9ic1ve6iic@4ax.com:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:22:49 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Some of the creationists seem to think that you atheist would benefit
from THEIR brand of fundamentalism rather than the kind you practice in
What "THEIR brand of fundamentalism", deliberately button-pushing,
lying hypocritical priest?
If you had any common sense or courtesy you would not get the reaction
you sometimes do.
To a fundy like you common sense and courtesy consist with agreeing with
everything you say.
What "fundy like me", lying hypocritical Christian?
Common sense and courtesy, is not presuming your ***** applies
outside your religion.
If you kept your doctrines inside your relion there would be no
reaction - learn the difference between your action and a reaction
that wouldn't even have happened.
But your doctrines tell you that they apply to everybody. Which makes
you just as bad as the creationists you decry.
Inthis caseit was for stupidly telling us that your theology etc had
practical applcations in the real world.
It does, but not in YOUR real world, which is a creation of your own
Liar.
You need tolearn where the virtual reality of your religion stops and
is replaced by shared objective reality. In which yours is just one of
hundreds of different religions and god-beliefs.
disordered imagination, wherein you are superior to other people on
account of your superior religion.
What "disordered imagination", lying Christian?
You need to lean the place of your religionin and its deity beliefs
inthe real world where it is merely one of hundreds, and not
substantively different. They're all special in the eyes of their
followers, and nobody would give atoss about them if they kept them to
themselves.
I could not have expressed your arrogant fundamentalism any better than
you have in your own words here. Thank you for demonstratinrg my case.
What "Arrogant fundamentalism", dishonest lying Christian?
But you are just as bad as the fundie. You bverate them for their
doctrines. While insisting that your own apply to everybody and rudely
talking at them as though they did.
Actually, I DON'T think my own apply to everybody. I keep telling people
they have to wrestle their own angel. But you keep demanding to wrestle
mine. And that isn't gonna help you!
Then why the stupid remarks about theology etc app.lying inthe real
world? If you didn't make them you wouldn't be called on them.
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.
What "religion", deliberately button pushing, lying hypocritical
priest?
Your religion, like that of all fundies is a brand of narcissism, but the
doctrines you express (God does not exist) are religious propositions,
just as doctrines such as (gods x, y and z exist) are religious
propositions. They are not scientific theories and cannot be tested by
the scientific method.
What "doctrine", liar?
What "brand of narcissism", liar?
What "God does not exist", liar?
The onlty religious propositions are yours,liar.
You make up ones about atheists to the point of falsehood,because you
are too stupid to grasp that it it isn't even something that could or
couldn't exist - just somebody else's religious belief.
I wouldn't give a flyingfuck about something as irrelevant as the
deity of your religion, if you morons kept it to yourselves.
Is not "believiing in Santa Claus" a religion too, according to your
wilful and bigoted ignrance?
Actually, I DO believe in Santa Claus. Not the jolly elf with the red
suit that commerce has invented but the REAL St. Nicholas, bishop of Myra
Idiot.
who got known for his generosity to children because on numerous
occasions he dug into his own personal coffers to prevent them being sold
into slavery by their parents' creditors (as was the law in that time and
place). Of course this couldn't have happened in YOUR "real world"
because Christianity has no effect on it, right?
Liar.
BECAUSE THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE IN THE REAL WORLD.
What liars like you pretend is "fundy atheism" is the natural human
reaction to your own stupid rudeness. Whether you are a priest or a
fundy.
First of all, I do not start the rudeness in this echo. It's always some
Liar. You made some stupid remarks about theology etc applying in the
real world, onan atheist newsgroup.
poor atheist who is all bent out of shape because someone DARED to
mention God in his august presence. What a crock of MERDE!
Tough. Keep your ***** inside your religion and nobody will even
know it's *****.
Take your self-righteous hypocrisy, stamp it on coffe tin lids, fold them
until they are all sharp corners and give yourself an enema with them.
Whines the hypocritical Christian who needs to get the beam out of his
own eye and keep his stupidity to himself.
I'm tired of even TRYING to be nice to you. You don't WANT nice. In
typical fundy fashion you want a fight and you want to play the martyr.
You don't even try, whining hypocite. You are a thoroughly dishonest
piece of work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
05 Nov 2005 02:20:03 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:25hom1lpue01u0v1o40h5qcmmfk1qj1j7k@4ax.com:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 05:08:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:758nm15tua7hhuouddu12vvp9ic1ve6iic@4ax.com:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:22:49 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Some of the creationists seem to think that you atheist would
benefit from THEIR brand of fundamentalism rather than the kind you
practice in
What "THEIR brand of fundamentalism", deliberately button-pushing,
lying hypocritical priest?
If you had any common sense or courtesy you would not get the
reaction you sometimes do.
To a fundy like you common sense and courtesy consist with agreeing
with everything you say.
What "fundy like me", lying hypocritical Christian?
ANY fundy like you.
Common sense and courtesy, is not presuming your ***** applies
outside your religion.
THEN STOP DOING THAT TO ME!
If you kept your doctrines inside your relion there would be no
reaction - learn the difference between your action and a reaction
that wouldn't even have happened.
Yes, if I bow down to your false fundy God you won't say bad things about
me. WOW!!!
But your doctrines tell you that they apply to everybody. Which makes
you just as bad as the creationists you decry.
REALITY does apply to everybody. You can have your own version of it as
long as your fantasy can support it. But stop putting down mine. It's
no less a fantasy than your own.
Inthis caseit was for stupidly telling us that your theology etc had
practical applcations in the real world.
It does, but not in YOUR real world, which is a creation of your own
Liar.
No, YOU LIE. And I'm getting bloody tired of it.
You need tolearn where the virtual reality of your religion stops and
is replaced by shared objective reality. In which yours is just one of
hundreds of different religions and god-beliefs.
You need to learn this.
disordered imagination, wherein you are superior to other people on
account of your superior religion.
What "disordered imagination", lying Christian?
The disordered imagination that thinks the god it sees in the mirror is
superior to everyone else in the universe, lying hypocrite!
And stop calling me liar if you don't want to wear the same label
yourself.
You need to lean the place of your religionin and its deity beliefs
inthe real world where it is merely one of hundreds, and not
substantively different. They're all special in the eyes of their
followers, and nobody would give atoss about them if they kept them
to themselves.
I could not have expressed your arrogant fundamentalism any better
than you have in your own words here. Thank you for demonstratinrg my
case.
What "Arrogant fundamentalism", dishonest lying Christian?
The arrogant fundamentalism where you pretend to be better than other
people. You're just another fucking fundy narcissist, no different from
any other, LIAR!
But you are just as bad as the fundie. You bverate them for their
doctrines. While insisting that your own apply to everybody and
rudely talking at them as though they did.
Actually, I DON'T think my own apply to everybody. I keep telling
people they have to wrestle their own angel. But you keep demanding
to wrestle mine. And that isn't gonna help you!
Then why the stupid remarks about theology etc app.lying inthe real
world? If you didn't make them you wouldn't be called on them.
Because it does.
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.
What "religion", deliberately button pushing, lying hypocritical
priest?
Your religion, like that of all fundies is a brand of narcissism, but
the doctrines you express (God does not exist) are religious
propositions, just as doctrines such as (gods x, y and z exist) are
religious propositions. They are not scientific theories and cannot
be tested by the scientific method.
What "doctrine", liar?
This doctrine: God does not exist.
What "brand of narcissism", liar?
The brand that makes your religion superior to all others, MORON.
What "God does not exist", liar?
That is the central tenet of your religion.
The onlty religious propositions are yours,liar.
Wrong, LIAR!
You make up ones about atheists to the point of falsehood,because you
are too stupid to grasp that it it isn't even something that could or
couldn't exist - just somebody else's religious belief.
Nope...MOST atheists just don't believe in God. But YOU believe in
harrassing those who DO believe in God. That's a very different degree
of "atheism" than the normal, standard variety. And it's what marks you
as a fundy atheist...
I wouldn't give a flyingfuck about something as irrelevant as the
deity of your religion, if you morons kept it to yourselves.
I doubt it. You spend way too much emotional energy making a big deal
about it to make that lie fly.
Is not "believiing in Santa Claus" a religion too, according to your
wilful and bigoted ignrance?
Actually, I DO believe in Santa Claus. Not the jolly elf with the red
suit that commerce has invented but the REAL St. Nicholas, bishop of
Myra
Idiot.
MORON.
who got known for his generosity to children because on numerous
occasions he dug into his own personal coffers to prevent them being
sold into slavery by their parents' creditors (as was the law in that
time and place). Of course this couldn't have happened in YOUR "real
world" because Christianity has no effect on it, right?
Liar.
YOU are the one that said my theology couldn't affect reality.
BECAUSE THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE IN THE REAL WORLD.
What liars like you pretend is "fundy atheism" is the natural human
reaction to your own stupid rudeness. Whether you are a priest or a
fundy.
First of all, I do not start the rudeness in this echo. It's always
some
Liar. You made some stupid remarks about theology etc applying in the
real world, onan atheist newsgroup.
Actually, moron, I made them in a thread crossposted from
alt.talk.creationism.
poor atheist who is all bent out of shape because someone DARED to
mention God in his august presence. What a crock of MERDE!
Tough. Keep your ***** inside your religion and nobody will even
know it's *****.
If you will do likewise, I'm sure we could get along. But being a fundy,
you won't. You will, as fundy bigots always do, seek out ways to bring
your religion into conflict with others and then act all bent out of
shape because you're being "persecuted."
Take your self-righteous hypocrisy, stamp it on coffe tin lids, fold
them until they are all sharp corners and give yourself an enema with
them.
Whines the hypocritical Christian who needs to get the beam out of his
own eye and keep his stupidity to himself.
I don't have any stupidity. You must have been in that line when I was
getting brains.
I'm tired of even TRYING to be nice to you. You don't WANT nice. In
typical fundy fashion you want a fight and you want to play the
martyr.
You don't even try, whining hypocite. You are a thoroughly dishonest
piece of work.
Go try to sell this to some other sucker, moron. I'm not buying it, you
miserable excuse for a turd. You're a fundamentalist bigot. Your
religious creed happens to be "there are no gods." Now, I don't care
about your religious creed and am not about to adopt it because you make
a lot of noise, so, if you don't like me posting to alt.atheism, then set
followups and go soak your head in a pail of kerosene. I'll even lend
you a match when you want some light.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
16 Nov 2005 10:51:57 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:1131038329.503233.278160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
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?
http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
yup
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 11:26:05 AM |
|
|
"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 *****.
That doesn't answer my question. But then, I didn't expect anyone to.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 11:55:08 AM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> said:
"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 *****.
That doesn't answer my question. But then, I didn't expect anyone to.
And you didn't answer Lee's question, you asked a question in return.
But here's an answer to your question: If there is no practical
application for people not in your religion, it is less likely that
your religion will survive and thrive. This leads to a conclusion that
these activities *are* of practical value to people outside your
religion, if your religion has survived and thrived. And that can
answer Lee's question.
A good example is the evangelical churches of the US. The practical
value for people outside those religions is that it keeps the people
inside them in line with the social customs and laws of the country.
The practical value for politicians, especially, is that it can give
them an easily manipulated voting bloc to get laws passed that are to
the politician's benefit. For example, by giving the churches
favorable treatment, favoring the religious doctrine of ID, and
overcoming constitutional protections and laws that agree with their
religious/social agenda on abortion and gays, the neocons can maintain
their position, in order to advance their real agenda -- dismantling
Social Security, establishing the American Empire, and other items
that favor the oligarchic corporate elite.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 12:17:30 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in
news:usikm19l35aske7p1jnpv8dc74d0psj3ib@4ax.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> said:
"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 *****.
That doesn't answer my question. But then, I didn't expect anyone to.
And you didn't answer Lee's question, you asked a question in return.
Indeed. I questioned whether his question was worth asking, much less worth
answering.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 12:25:43 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> said:
Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in
news:usikm19l35aske7p1jnpv8dc74d0psj3ib@4ax.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> said:
"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 *****.
That doesn't answer my question. But then, I didn't expect anyone to.
And you didn't answer Lee's question, you asked a question in return.
Indeed. I questioned whether his question was worth asking, much less worth
answering.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
This reminds me of an anti-smoking ad that the tobacco industry
created when they were forced to do so. The centerpiece message was
"We look forward to a world where anyone can quit smoking."
Which means, of course that everyone has to be smoking.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
03 Nov 2005 03:01:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:11:56 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> 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:
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.)
I was asking Dave. He claims they are.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
02 Nov 2005 01:44:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:26:28 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
You might like to think so, but the fact is good theology is as logical
as good science. It does, however, stem from different underlying
axioms. Real freedom of religion comes from disputing those axioms not
from twisting the logic that flows from them.
Hardly. It has no relevance in the real world outside the theologist's
religion. No matter what the theologist imagines.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
02 Nov 2005 02:53:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:27:34 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
With logic like that, I would not want this man diagnosing me. He'd
probably conclude that demons caused my aches and pains and call for a
priest. Now, I'm perfectly happy having a priest around (in fact I am
one), but I'd rather my doctor use real logic instead of sophistry in his
diagnosis. Otherwise, the correlation between his diagnosis and the
actual cause of my aches and pains is apt to be somewhat random.
If he is a priest this explains a lot.
The Catholic church is neither literalist nor creationist (although I
know a few literalist Catholics who are creationist).
But as a priest he follows the doctrine that even atheists know about
his god, coupled with the doctrine that his doctrines apply to
everybody whatever thay might have to say. It explains why he goes ape
***** after he has been careless and rude about atheists, insisting his
slanders are accurate. After all, we can only be what his doctrine
says.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
02 Nov 2005 05:18:33 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:27:34 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
With logic like that, I would not want this man diagnosing me. He'd
probably conclude that demons caused my aches and pains and call for a
priest. Now, I'm perfectly happy having a priest around (in fact I am
one), but I'd rather my doctor use real logic instead of sophistry in his
diagnosis. Otherwise, the correlation between his diagnosis and the
actual cause of my aches and pains is apt to be somewhat random.
If he is a priest this explains a lot.
The Catholic church is neither literalist nor creationist (although I
know a few literalist Catholics who are creationist).
But as a priest he follows the doctrine that even atheists know about
his god, coupled with the doctrine that his doctrines apply to
everybody whatever thay might have to say. It explains why he goes ape
***** after he has been careless and rude about atheists, insisting his
slanders are accurate. After all, we can only be what his doctrine
says.
Yeah, Dave is a reasonable guy right up until you point out how absurd
his religous beliefs are.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Life After Darwin |
02 Nov 2005 06:52:50 PM |
|
|
On 2 Nov 2005 15:18:33 -0800, "J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:27:34 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
With logic like that, I would not want this man diagnosing me. He'd
probably conclude that demons caused my aches and pains and call for a
priest. Now, I'm perfectly happy having a priest around (in fact I am
one), but I'd rather my doctor use real logic instead of sophistry in his
diagnosis. Otherwise, the correlation between his diagnosis and the
actual cause of my aches and pains is apt to be somewhat random.
If he is a priest this explains a lot.
The Catholic church is neither literalist nor creationist (although I
know a few literalist Catholics who are creationist).
But as a priest he follows the doctrine that even atheists know about
his god, coupled with the doctrine that his doctrines apply to
everybody whatever thay might have to say. It explains why he goes ape
***** after he has been careless and rude about atheists, insisting his
slanders are accurate. After all, we can only be what his doctrine
says.
Yeah, Dave is a reasonable guy right up until you point out how absurd
his religous beliefs are.
Every so often he drops his church's standard slanders about atheists,
or talks at us as though his god were as real for us as it is for him.
At which point he becomes the standard theist loony.
Which is sad.
I've known priests who understood what atheism is. Who would be
considered agnostics by the extremists.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
