Religions > Bible > You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT atheists.
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"V" |
| Date: |
14 Jul 2007 07:38:06 AM |
| Object: |
You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT atheists. |
Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
In his book religious literacyhttp://www.amazon.com/Religious-Literacy-American-Know-Doesnt/dp/0060...The
author is a Christian, and states that in Austria where religionis
shoved down the students throats, belief is almost non existent.
InAmerica were belief is 90 percent, the average Christian is unable
toname the Four Gospels or the Twelve Apostles. They need to know
Christianity to reject it.
Lets start spoon feeding it two them.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
V:
Well, some of that is true. Can't name the apostles and I was Catholic
for 50 years. I can't name all the 50 states as well...but I am not
too smart so you can't go by me.
I will say that many atheists know more about religion than the
theists do.
You want to spoon-fed theists religion...good policy...maybe some of
it will rub off on you.
But if you want to spoon feed theists the destruction of religion and
spiritual values within themselves and in government...I have one
question for you?
Is you policy the same as the one in Iraq?
Take out the powers that be in government as well as within the
individual and replace it with atheistic wishful thinking?
I thought atheist and wishful thinking did not mix?
If out get rid on one thing, what do you plan on replacing religion in
the politician with?
Atheist values?
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0
You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT
atheists.
If you like politics with no God go to Russia, China or the orient.
Atheists look at this topic with tunnel vision.
Atheists like to fantasize what the world would be like if religion
would never have been invented.
Sure Christians do bad things, so do all practitioners in other
religions. But many of these religious practitioners also do good
things.
You never see atheists taking up charitable works and feeding and
clothing the poor in any organized way as Christians do.
Atheist organized?
The only thing atheists can organize shelves to do to is to plonk V
and spew hatred.
There may be the odd atheists philanthropists here or there, but
nothing organized like Christians charitable organizations.
I wrote to the president of American Atheists, UK Atheists, the
Secular Humanism Foundation, Sam Harris and others about this very
topic and none had the courtesy to reply.
Shows how much interest atheists really have in humanity.
No, I prefer to keep things as they are and keep religions, even with
all their imperfections. I believe religions do more good than harm. I
shutter to think what the world would be like if it was composed
solely of atheists.
When I discussed Christian principles one time an Atheist piped up to
say "the Christians have no principles," and "Jesus was a fabled
creation of the Christians."
When we sperate the personalities from the principles it makes looking
at things much easier. When I am referring to Christian principles I
speak of such things as charity, works of mercy and the golden rule,
where the emphasis is on principles and not on the personalities of
the church.
For even if Jesus was just created as a fable, these Christian
principles are universal truths in their own right if one desires to
live a life at peace and promote the inner peace of others in this
world.
"The Corporal Works of Mercy"
To feed the hungry
To give drink to the thirsty
To clothe the naked
To harbour the harbourless
To visit the sick
To ransom the captive
To bury the dead
"The Spiritual Works of Mercy"
To instruct the ignorant
To counsel the doubtful
To admonish sinners
To bear wrongs patiently
To forgive offenses willingly
To comfort the afflicted
To pray for the living and the dead
You see, by applying the rule of reciprocity or rule of opposites we
can see if we were in these positions of the needy mentioned above, we
would like such charity bestowed on us for the most part.
What about our children, parents and loved ones?
Wouldn't we wish the same for them?
We have no loved ones?
What about our neighbors?
The Christian ethic says to treat one another as we would wish to be
treated. As we give ~ so we receive.
Even if an atheist, as we give peace - we receive inner peace as many
of the tools I mentioned above do not require belief in God, they only
requirement is a desire to be at peace and to bring peace to others.
This is the Christian doctrine in a nutshell, when we put principles
before personalities.
As you instill seeds of peace within others you plant the same seeds
and water these seeds within you as well. As James Allen wrote in "As
a man Thinketh" ~ To think well of all, to be cheerful with all, to
patiently learn to find the good in all - such unselfish thoughts are
the very portals of heaven; and to dwell day by day in thoughts of
peace toward every creature will bring abounding peace to their
possessor."
This is universal truth that transcends man made religions.
Remember, we do not have to do it perfectly. Just look for direction
and forget perfection - for perfection or range is of the ego and form
is of the soul.
There are many tools for peace within the worlds spiritual paths, no
one said these paths are perfect, in fact, it was once said that
walking the spiritual path is akin to walking on a razors edge.
But if we bother to be honest, non prejudicial and to look, we can
find tools that can help us be at peace whether atheist, agnostic or
believer.
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
.
|
|
| User: "John Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT atheists. |
14 Jul 2007 08:55:24 AM |
|
|
"V" <vfr44@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184416686.479126.107490@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
In his book religious
literacyhttp://www.amazon.com/Religious-Literacy-American-Know-Doesnt/dp/0060...The
author is a Christian, and states that in Austria where religionis
shoved down the students throats, belief is almost non existent.
InAmerica were belief is 90 percent, the average Christian is unable
toname the Four Gospels or the Twelve Apostles. They need to know
Christianity to reject it.
Lets start spoon feeding it two them.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
V:
Well, some of that is true. Can't name the apostles and I was Catholic
for 50 years. I can't name all the 50 states as well...but I am not
too smart so you can't go by me.
I will say that many atheists know more about religion than the
theists do.
You want to spoon-fed theists religion...good policy...maybe some of
it will rub off on you.
But if you want to spoon feed theists the destruction of religion and
spiritual values within themselves and in government...I have one
question for you?
Whoa!
First of all you yould have to prove "spiritual values", and they being the
province of ONLY, exclusively, religious people.
Then you would have to prove "religious people" are more likely to have ANY
values, as a group, more than others.
You cannot do either!
Is you policy the same as the one in Iraq?
Say what?
Take out the powers that be in government as well as within the
individual and replace it with atheistic wishful thinking?
Strongly believeing that an individuals religous beliefs are absolute, valid
and always positive is the HEIGHT of "wishful thinking".
Actually, so are those religious beliefs.
I thought atheist and wishful thinking did not mix?
You've already mentioned that we should not go by you .... because you are
not to smart.
You're proving it by assuming your own claims, about atheists (only?) having
"wishful thinking on their side.
If out get rid on one thing, what do you plan on replacing religion in
the politician with?
Truth? Honesty? Integrity? Reality? A sense of human justice? A senseof
Humane justice?
^You know - many of the things you, too, lack.
Atheist values?
There is no such things as "atheist values", lowlife.
The concept that there are religious values, and that they are constantly
followed and honored by so-called religious people, is nothing more than an
arrogant, and ignorant, delusion.
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0
You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT
atheists.
No ... If I were one to enjoy kissing ***** - that would make me religious.
If you like politics with no God go to Russia, China or the orient.
If you like corrupt, self serving, lying, arrogant, ignorant, outrageously
biased, hypocriticqal, murdering, power and money greedy politicians
who PRETEND that hey are better because they "got religion" .... go right to
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Wasington D.C..
(snip "pile-o-crap)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
Only in your dreams, arrogance and illusions.
AA#2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT atheists. |
14 Jul 2007 06:29:21 PM |
|
|
In article <1184416686.479126.107490@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
vfr44@aol.com says...
Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
In his book religious literacyhttp://www.amazon.com/Religious-Literacy-American-Know-Doesnt/dp/0060...The
author is a Christian, and states that in Austria where religionis
shoved down the students throats, belief is almost non existent.
InAmerica were belief is 90 percent, the average Christian is unable
toname the Four Gospels or the Twelve Apostles.
Neither can the Four Gospels themselves name the 12 apostles
consistently.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "FYI" |
|
| Title: Re: You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT atheists. |
14 Jul 2007 07:42:14 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.21030a407232c2fb98a00b@news.readfreenews.net...
.. Hasn't the New Testament been changed?
Question:
Hasn't the New Testament been changed since it has been copied and
recopied throughout history?
Answer:
A common misconception is that the text of the Bible has not come down to
us the way in which it was originally written. Accusations abound of
zealous monks changing the biblical text throughout Church history. This
issue is of the utmost importance, since an altered text would do grave
damage to the credibility of the story.
As F. F. Bruce says, "The historical 'once-for-all-ness' of Christianity
which distinguishes it from those religious and philosophical systems,
which are not specially related to any particular time, makes the
reliability of the writings which purport to record this revelation a
question of first-rate importance" (The New Testament Documents: Are They
Reliable? p. 8).
Fortunately, the problem is not a lack of evidence. There are three
different types of evidence that are to be used in evaluating the New
Testament text. These are the Greek manuscripts, the various versions in
which the New Testament is translated, and the writings of the Church
fathers.
The New Testament was originally composed in the Greek language. There
are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of
the New Testament. Although we do not possess the originals, copies exist
from a very early date.
The New Testament was written from about a.d. 50 to a.d. 90. The earliest
fragment (p. 52) dates about a.d. 120, with about fifty other fragments
dating within 150-200 years from the time of composition.
Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus (a.d. 325) and Codex Sinaiticus
(a.d. 350), a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of
composition. This may seem like a long time span, but it is minimal
compared to most ancient works.
The earliest copy of Caesar's The Gallic Wars dates 1,000 years after it
was written, and the first complete copy of the Odyssey by Homer dates
2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing
of the New Testament and earliest copies is compared to other ancient
works, the New Testament proves to be much closer to the time of the
original.
The 5,500 copies are far and away the most we have of any ancient work.
Many ancient writings have been transmitted to us by only a handful of
manuscripts (Catullus-three copies; the earliest one is 1,600 years after
he wrote; Herodotus-eight copies and 1,300 years).
Not only do the New Testament documents have more manuscript evidence and
close time interval between the writing and earliest copy, but they were
also translated into several other languages at an early date.
Translation of a document into another language was rare in the ancient
world, so this is an added plus for the New Testament.
The number of copies of the versions is in excess of 18,000, with
possibly as many as 25,000. This is further evidence that helps us
establish the New Testament text.
Even if we did not possess the 5,500 Greek manuscripts or the 18,000
copies of the versions, the text of the New Testament could still be
reproduced within 250 years from its composition. How? By the writings of
the early Christians. In commentaries, letters, etc., these ancient
writers quote the biblical text, thus giving us another witness to the
text of the New Testament.
John Burgon has catalogued more than 86,000 citations by the early church
fathers who cite different parts of the New Testament. Thus we observe
that there is so much more evidence for the reliability of the New
Testament text than any other comparable writings in the ancient world.
F. F. Bruce makes the following observation: "The evidence for our New
Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many
writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of
questioning."
He also states, "And if the New Testament were a collection of secular
writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all
doubt" (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15).
Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the
British Museum, was one of the foremost experts on ancient manuscripts
and their authority. Shortly before his death, he wrote this concerning
the New Testament:
"The interval between the dates of original composition (of the New
Testament) and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in
fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the
Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has
now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the
books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established" (The
Bible and Archaeology, pp. 288-89).
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? rev. ed.,
Eerdmans, 1977
John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity, Here's Life
Publishers, 1983
Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, rev. ed., Here's Life
Publishers, 1979
Colin Brown (ED), History, Criticism, and Faith, 2nd ed., Inter-Varsity
Press, July, 1977
[1]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]McDowell, J., & Stewart, D. D. (1993). Answers to tough questions.
Originally published: San Bernardino, Calif. : Here's Life Publishers,
c1980. Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT atheists. |
15 Jul 2007 12:21:40 AM |
|
|
In article <bYKdndC08PLw8ATbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@giganews.com>,
fyi_201@NOThotmail.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.21030a407232c2fb98a00b@news.readfreenews.net...
. Hasn't the New Testament been changed?
That's not the issue I raised. I pointed out that even the canonical
gospels cannot agree on who the 12 apostles were. The fact that there
are many different, non-canonical gospels and many variant versions of
the gospels is another matter entirely.
Question:
Hasn't the New Testament been changed since it has been copied and
recopied throughout history?
Your 1977 & 1983 references notwithstanding, perhaps you should consult
Bart Ehrman's book _Misquoting Jesus_ for slightly more contemporary
information on the tens and hundreds of thousands of variants which exist
between modern bibles and alleged ancient sources. Feel free to cut and
paste some propaganda bashing Ehrman as well, Melchy.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FYI" |
|
| Title: Re: You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT atheists. |
14 Jul 2007 07:23:52 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.21030a407232c2fb98a00b@news.readfreenews.net...
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the following:
"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your
pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot
and turn to attack you." (Matthew 7:6 RSV)
"The best way to drive out the devil, if he will
not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and
flout him, for he cannot bear scorn."
.. Business
The principles Jesus taught have made an impact on the world of business.
The early church taught the dignity of labor, and believers were admonished
to work hard and to shun laziness. During the Middle Ages, monasteries
improved agriculture by developing crop yield and methods of tillage. The
church also insisted on a just price for goods and fair wages for the worker.
The Reformation inspired dramatic changes in the world of business. By
emphasizing every vocation as a "call" from God, Christians encouraged the
growth of a new urban middle class. This new spirit of commerce
stimulated navigational exploration and the settlement of unknown lands.
The turbulence of industrialization, urbanization, and immigration in the 18th
and 19th centuries brought hardship and poverty to millions of people
across Europe and North America. Under the leadership of John Wesley
and George Whitefield, many Christians, individually and in groups, began
striving for reform in the workplace. Some fought for regulations to protect
women and children in mines and industry. Others opposed forced labor,
helped enact child labor laws, and formed labor unions.
In the 20th century, many godly men such as J. L. Kraft of Kraft Cheese
and J. C. Penney, who founded a merchandizing empire by that name, built
businesses based on biblical principles. They funneled large percentages of
their profits into the church or worthy social projects. They sought to make
work conditions fair and profitable for their employees and gave of their
personal wealth and time to spread the gospel of Christ.
[1]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]Bright, B. (1992). A man without equal (75). Orlando, FL: NewLife
Publications.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "FYI" |
|
| Title: Re: You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT atheists. |
14 Jul 2007 07:43:08 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.21030a407232c2fb98a00b@news.readfreenews.net...
Reaping the Whirlwind: The Dawn of "Monkey Morality"
Belief in evolution is not a harmless enterprise. Pro-active evolutionary
propagandists claim that the debate over origins is purely about science:
They have the science, and creationists don't; it's that simple. But it's
not. There are specific ethical implications that follow from believing
and applying the major tenets of the evolutionary religion to life. The
late Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), who served as a popular spokesman for
the evolutionary worldview, stated the following:
No factual discovery of science (statements about how nature "is") can, in
principle, lead us to ethical conclusions (how we "ought" to behave) or to
convictions about intrinsic meaning (the "purpose" of our lives). These
last two questions--and what more important inquiries could we make?--lie
firmly in the domains of religion, philosophy and humanistic study.1
In the final analysis, by Gould's own admission, science cannot teach us
how to live. Following the inherent atheism of the evolutionary worldview,
how can there be objective morality and intrinsic meaning when religion is
a myth, philosophy is the random musings of evolved chunks of organic
matter, and humanistic study is nothing more than the record of what Homo
sapiens do? What's the basis for evaluation?
Gould found himself caught in the implications of his own atheistic and
impersonal worldview, so he perpetrated a con, a philosophical dodge.
"Science and religion should be equal, mutually respecting partners, each
the master of its own domain, and with each domain vital to human life in
a different way."2 But a consistent evolutionist does not believe in the
equality of religion. In fact, he doesn't believe in religion at all. And
yet, when it comes to the meaning of life and the "oughts" of behavior,
Gould must turn to religion for answers because he cannot find morality in
his evolutionary hypothesis. He admits that "Today, all scientists accept
materialism (at least in their workplace), and the philosophically astute
realize that it poses no threat to our love for music, subjective insight,
and love itself!"3 But if evolution is true--"operating blindly and
randomly"4 as evolutionists insist--there cannot be any scientific
justification for morality and meaning because these are outside the realm
of science. In fact, there is no reality outside the realm of science. As
materialists, they cannot account for a "subjective insight" like love
since both insights and love are non-material and beyond the scope of
science. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of
DNA, set forth the logical implications of materialism:
Crick's "astonishing hypothesis" declares that all of our interior states,
joys and sorrows, our memories and ambitions, even our personal identity
and the cherished notion of free will, are "no more than the behavior of
nerve cells."5
Crick and Gould used the Christian concepts of love, joy, and sorrow
simply as labels to identify the impersonal, purely random "behavior of
nerve cells." What's true for "interior states" is also necessarily true
for morality. Michael Ruse asserts that morality developed in the same way
as hands, feet, and teeth--the "ephemeral product of the evolutionary
process."6 According to Ruse, "Morality," like gills in fish and lungs in
Homo sapiens, "is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and has no
being beyond this."7 Killing Jews, starving millions for the greater cause
of "the revolution," guillotining aristocrats, and lopping of the heads of
relief workers are just aids to survival.
Once again, in order for the evolutionist to do science and live in this
world, he must borrow religious presuppositions that do not exist in his
materialistic worldview. This schizophrenia is most evident when a recent
article published in The Sciences, a New York Academy of Science magazine,
stated that "rape is a 'natural, biological' phenomenon, springing from
men's evolutionary urge to reproduce."8 Rape makes perfect sense when
explained scientifically. Even so, the authors conclude, "Plainly, rapists
are responsible for rape and should be punished."9 Why? Animals aren't
punished for "rape."
Evolutionists need to be pushed on these points. Don't let them take a
breath. Force them to answer this series of questions when you attend the
next school board meeting where creation and evolution are discussed: Why
are you important and why would it be wrong to kill you, take all your
possessions, and enslave your children? "If we are all biological
accidents, why shouldn't the white accidents own and sell the black
accidents?"10
By Gary DeMar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Stephen Jay Gould, "Dorothy, It's Really Oz," Time (August 23,
1999), 59.
2 Gould, "Dorothy, It's Really Oz," 59.
3 Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwin's 'Big Book,'" review of Natural
Selection, by Charles Darwin, ed. by R. C. Stauffer (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1975), in Science (May 23, 1975) 188:824-26. Quoted in
Henry M. Morris, That Their Words May be Used Against Them (Green Forest,
AR: Master Books, 1999), 474.
4 Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Up From the Apes:
Remarkable New Evidence is Filling in the Story of How we Became Human,"
Time (August 23, 1999), 58.
5 Daniel Voll, "Soul Searching with Francis Crick," Omni (February
1994), 46.
6 Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 268.
Quoted in Paul Copan, "True for You, Not True For Me": Deflating the
Slogans that Leave Christians Speechless (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House
Publishers, 1998), 46.
7 Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm, 268.
8 Dan Vergano, "'Natural, biological' theory of rape creates instant
storm," USA Today (January 28, 2000), 8D.
9 Quoted in Vergano, "'Natural, biological' theory of rape creates
instant storm," 8D.
10 James Scott Bell, The Darwin Conspiracy (Gresham, OR: Vision House,
1995), 64.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "V" |
|
| Title: Re: You should be kissing the asses of the politicians that they are NOT atheists. |
19 Jul 2007 05:58:16 PM |
|
|
On Jul 14, 8:43?pm, "FYI" <fyi_...@NOThotmail.com> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:MPG.21030a407232c2fb98a00b@news.readfreenews.net...
Reaping the Whirlwind: The Dawn of "Monkey Morality"
Belief in evolution is not a harmless enterprise. Pro-active evolutionary
propagandists claim that the debate over origins is purely about science:
They have the science, and creationists don't; it's that simple. But it's
not. There are specific ethical implications that follow from believing
and applying the major tenets of the evolutionary religion to life. The
late Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), who served as a popular spokesman for
the evolutionary worldview, stated the following:
No factual discovery of science (statements about how nature "is") can, in
principle, lead us to ethical conclusions (how we "ought" to behave) or to
convictions about intrinsic meaning (the "purpose" of our lives). These
last two questions--and what more important inquiries could we make?--lie
firmly in the domains of religion, philosophy and humanistic study.1
In the final analysis, by Gould's own admission, science cannot teach us
how to live. Following the inherent atheism of the evolutionary worldview,
how can there be objective morality and intrinsic meaning when religion is
a myth, philosophy is the random musings of evolved chunks of organic
matter, and humanistic study is nothing more than the record of what Homo
sapiens do? What's the basis for evaluation?
Gould found himself caught in the implications of his own atheistic and
impersonal worldview, so he perpetrated a con, a philosophical dodge.
"Science and religion should be equal, mutually respecting partners, each
the master of its own domain, and with each domain vital to human life in
a different way."2 But a consistent evolutionist does not believe in the
equality of religion. In fact, he doesn't believe in religion at all. And
yet, when it comes to the meaning of life and the "oughts" of behavior,
Gould must turn to religion for answers because he cannot find morality in
his evolutionary hypothesis. He admits that "Today, all scientists accept
materialism (at least in their workplace), and the philosophically astute
realize that it poses no threat to our love for music, subjective insight,
and love itself!"3 But if evolution is true--"operating blindly and
randomly"4 as evolutionists insist--there cannot be any scientific
justification for morality and meaning because these are outside the realm
of science. In fact, there is no reality outside the realm of science. As
materialists, they cannot account for a "subjective insight" like love
since both insights and love are non-material and beyond the scope of
science. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of
DNA, set forth the logical implications of materialism:
Crick's "astonishing hypothesis" declares that all of our interior states,
joys and sorrows, our memories and ambitions, even our personal identity
and the cherished notion of free will, are "no more than the behavior of
nerve cells."5
Crick and Gould used the Christian concepts of love, joy, and sorrow
simply as labels to identify the impersonal, purely random "behavior of
nerve cells." What's true for "interior states" is also necessarily true
for morality. Michael Ruse asserts that morality developed in the same way
as hands, feet, and teeth--the "ephemeral product of the evolutionary
process."6 According to Ruse, "Morality," like gills in fish and lungs in
Homo sapiens, "is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and has no
being beyond this."7 Killing Jews, starving millions for the greater cause
of "the revolution," guillotining aristocrats, and lopping of the heads of
relief workers are just aids to survival.
Once again, in order for the evolutionist to do science and live in this
world, he must borrow religious presuppositions that do not exist in his
materialistic worldview. This schizophrenia is most evident when a recent
article published in The Sciences, a New York Academy of Science magazine,
stated that "rape is a 'natural, biological' phenomenon, springing from
men's evolutionary urge to reproduce."8 Rape makes perfect sense when
explained scientifically. Even so, the authors conclude, "Plainly, rapists
are responsible for rape and should be punished."9 Why? Animals aren't
punished for "rape."
Evolutionists need to be pushed on these points. Don't let them take a
breath. Force them to answer this series of questions when you attend the
next school board meeting where creation and evolution are discussed: Why
are you important and why would it be wrong to kill you, take all your
possessions, and enslave your children? "If we are all biological
accidents, why shouldn't the white accidents own and sell the black
accidents?"10
By Gary DeMar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Stephen Jay Gould, "Dorothy, It's Really Oz," Time (August 23,
1999), 59.
2 Gould, "Dorothy, It's Really Oz," 59.
3 Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwin's 'Big Book,'" review of Natural
Selection, by Charles Darwin, ed. by R. C. Stauffer (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1975), in Science (May 23, 1975) 188:824-26. Quoted in
Henry M. Morris, That Their Words May be Used Against Them (Green Forest,
AR: Master Books, 1999), 474.
4 Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Up From the Apes:
Remarkable New Evidence is Filling in the Story of How we Became Human,"
Time (August 23, 1999), 58.
5 Daniel Voll, "Soul Searching with Francis Crick," Omni (February
1994), 46.
6 Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 268.
Quoted in Paul Copan, "True for You, Not True For Me": Deflating the
Slogans that Leave Christians Speechless (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House
Publishers, 1998), 46.
7 Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm, 268.
8 Dan Vergano, "'Natural, biological' theory of rape creates instant
storm," USA Today (January 28, 2000), 8D.
9 Quoted in Vergano, "'Natural, biological' theory of rape creates
instant storm," 8D.
10 James Scott Bell, The Darwin Conspiracy (Gresham, OR: Vision House,
1995), 64.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
I don't disallow your right to your opinion. But sometimes the lesser
of two evils may be best. My own beleifs are those of evolution pretty
much, but I admit I do no know everything.
Where does the two evils come in?
The many countries that the US has been at war with and subsequently
lost the war to can be most grateful were not an atheist country. If
we were a country that did not apply Christian principles to our
captors millions more would have been killed.
Atheist run countries have a policy of extermination and ethnic
cleansing rather than applying charity. Atheist like to claim religion
killed so many people...well without religion in world the killings
would have been much worse.
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
