tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post8276767599613567897..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Jeffrey A. MyersUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46760657750425399602010-11-01T17:29:26.017-04:002010-11-01T17:29:26.017-04:00Millions of people worshiping the same god proves ...Millions of people worshiping the same god proves nothing, Breckmin. If Christians are so unified, then why is there over 38,000 sects and denominations? Also, it's funny how Muslims are going to hell for not believing in Jesus, yet their worship of Allah somehow magically counts as devotion to jeebus. And by the way, Buddha explicitly told his followers he was not a god, and almost no one worships him as per his instructions, so it's pretty obvious why he doesn't get worship since he was above it.<br />Imbecile.<br /><br />As for your second comment, you're basically using ad populem, and your entire comment is so jam-packed with Epic Fail that I'm somewhat surprised that every cell in your brain didn't burn itself out when you posted it. <br />Moron.<br />There has been millions of gods worshiped in the history of Man, and countless songs and poems have been written to them(including Zeus, Apollo, Hermes, etc.). And no, the god of the bible is not"unlimited"; examine your own theology, genius.<br />And BTW, only a full-blown retard would try to quantify the existence of a deity by gauging the devotion that said deity receives. <br />"Hey, them fellers are cuttin' off their penises in worship of the Swamp God; tharfore, tha Swamp God must be real!!"<br />What kind of logic is that? Sheesh.B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70195544663702233072010-10-31T21:23:24.182-04:002010-10-31T21:23:24.182-04:00millions of gospel songs written to One Infinite C...millions of gospel songs written to One Infinite Creator and One Lord Jesus Christ! <br /><br />NOT to a FSM made of pasta<br /><br />NOT to an invisible dragon in your garage<br /><br />NOT to a tea pot in outer space<br /><br />NOT to a pink unicorn<br /><br />NOT to Zeus or any other finite god<br /><br />NOT to a goblin or any other finite existence we create in literature<br /><br />One Man (Son of Man) Who died for the sins of the world and One INFINITE CREATOR!<br /><br />Question everything!Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2729723705530929362010-10-31T21:17:35.119-04:002010-10-31T21:17:35.119-04:00"A billion people saying the same thing doesn..."A billion people saying the same thing doesn't make it TRUE."<br /><br />They are NOT just saying the same thing. They are engaging in worship of a Holy Creator and worshipping Him through praise songs in such a way that is unique.<br /><br />This is an "observation" throughout the world...NOT an argument.<br /><br />"Argumentum ad populum, anyone?"<br /><br />Not a formal argument... but a billion people saying they have a personal relationship with the Existence or Creator/God Who made them - and this type of worship doesn't happen to Mohammad, Buddha or anyone else (note: Jews singing songs to the God of Abraham or Muslims fearful reverence is STILL the God of Abraham) is an OBSERVATION that can not be denied.<br /><br />Question everything.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56976392716969242182010-10-29T10:27:25.772-04:002010-10-29T10:27:25.772-04:00@ Exreformed
Well friend, as ive already explaine...@ Exreformed<br /><br />Well friend, as ive already explained, having myself walked a few miles in much the same kind of moccasins you were once also forced into wearing.Im not so ignorant of how these types of moccasins can cause some people so very many blisters, that sadly sometimes tend to festor their feet and try their best to tear their whole world apart.And i do believe that thats some of the mighty fine wisdom! of the first nation folks of that mighty fine country widely known as the U.S.A.<br /><br />And you know maybe walking in some other peoples moccasins now and then, might even help us better understand many other folk too .Even Muslims in countries where life can already be very tough without the presense of some folks who sadly choose to try and make life seem more harsh than it already is , which ends up causing more trouble for us all.A dogs life aint really seeming like its really got much real promiss of any real worth ,when it sometimes seems like there are those who would maybe seem keen on making a dogs life even more unbearable to live than it already be .<br /><br />And no this doesnt mean i think of our muslim brothers and sisters as being dogs.I think of them as being humans also, human who just like you my friend Exreformed, can also feel so much pain and hardship and sometimes feel like being pushed toward acting out of their honest human charactor, like pitbulls through the presense of certain overuling situations that sadly happen to exist around them too.<br /><br />Which is why we need to at least try to understand certian overbearing situations of folks like our friend Cole too.<br /><br />But hey even if maybe its actually little consolation to the extreme hurt and harm you experienced, you do know right? that yes indeed ! your therapist is as wise as those wise folks who were first nation folk.Its so true you should atleast try to find some pride in the fact that you are a survivor ! , and lived to tell the tale, and lived to try and be of assistence to try and bring about some change some day ,so that hopefully given time when the modern chieftian powers that be today finally decide to decide enough of this faith suffering is enough ...They will decide to change matters a little and finally agree! to do something of better actual action to help bring about some more hope for the many other average folk like you and i, that at present it seems must sadly need to be forcing us tribal folk of this world to be needing to even experience such arrogant faithful nastiness that exists all around us.<br /><br />You know you do need to be sure to stick around dont you Exreformed ,for to be sure they never ever get the chance to simply turn a blind eye and deaf ear and forget about it all with "ease".These modern day "chiefs" in power in governments,they really do need their cozy feathers ruffled a little, into someday admitting on agreeing on the REAL NEED of actually taking some "honest" action someday instead of endless offering of talk.<br /><br />Because today so many are still controlled by the thoughtless uncaring "faith powers" around us ,and their bullshit Gods of supposed love and kindness is utter crap and still spoken about with the utter worthlessness of such forked-tongue<br /><br />I havent been around so much lately Exreformed, because understand sadly sometimes i too still do need to deal with some close family member matters, that are also spoken with worthless faithful forked-tongue too.Sadly this cancer is malignant worldwide problem my friend ,so dont ever let yourself slip into feeling maybe you is to alone in this.There is many of us blood brothers worldwide fighting the very same issues, even if people like Ana cant seem to open their educated eyes wide enough to even start to see and fully understand.It just goes to show that fancy schools or faith circle still dont nessarily always make for some people ending up being so very smart or wise.The school of hard-knocks taught people like you! something that any ammount of money and faith just cannot ever teach.<br /><br />Kia Kaha !! my good friendGandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27616359484444371292010-10-29T02:49:19.055-04:002010-10-29T02:49:19.055-04:00Just for the record I got the idea from Cipher her...Just for the record I got the idea from Cipher here is what he posted on D.C. and I totally agree with him.<br /><br />Ed, I generally agree with you, but I have to disagree with you here. I can never understand why anyone finds people like Breckmin amusing. I don't; I find them appalling. I've said this here before - conservative Christians are the worst people in the world. They are the worst people who have ever lived. They have no problem with the idea of the eternal torture of billions of their human siblings - very often, even their own children. Many of them are Calvinists, and believe that God created them expressly for that purpose - and, again, the have absolutely no problem with this. None. The bottom line is that as long as they're saved, that's all that matters. They are the most selfish, self-centered people in all of human history.<br /><br />I say it all the time; the mounting evidence continues to identify it as a neurological disorder. They're a genetic dead end. Quarantine them, along with their Islamic fundamentalist counterparts, and breed them out of the genome. It's our only hope. Tragically, of course, this will never happen. We haven't got but a few years left - and, as we go under, the last Christian, on his deathbed, will curse those whom he knows to be the real culprits responsible for humanity's demise - the liberals, the atheists and the gays.<br /><br />@Jeffery<br />Hey, cipher is from Greshem, OR, you should get together for coffeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71531642479909829402010-10-29T02:46:13.201-04:002010-10-29T02:46:13.201-04:00@Anna
"Systematic extermination", I jus...@Anna<br /><br />"Systematic extermination", I just looked that up and I find your little comment to be very offensive. I never advocating gassing people to death or torture. It's simple, put them on reservations and do not let them have anymore children. I'll bet you have all kinds of "Christian" reasons justifying what the U.S. did to Native Americans, it's not different in my eyes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23676108393521075342010-10-29T02:41:28.655-04:002010-10-29T02:41:28.655-04:00Gandolf
Hey friend, haven't seen you around ...Gandolf<br /><br />Hey friend, haven't seen you around for a while. As always, your reply's really make me think, and I appreciate your intuition about human behavior. I actually found the solution of breeding them out of the genome from another poster here at D.C. I liked it so much I am going to post his comments again. <br /><br />Yes, my friend, what those ass holes did to me turned me into a pit bull. As a mater of fact I have been dealing with it by sharing every little detail with my therapist. My therapist told me the statistics of what people do in my situation. 95% of the time they commit suicide. He showed me the studies, and said that based on what those jerk ass fundamentalist did to my brain, I should have killed myself, but I did not, there fore I am a survivor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64664136427728818462010-10-29T02:05:35.994-04:002010-10-29T02:05:35.994-04:00Jeffrey A. Myers said..." And for the record,...Jeffrey A. Myers said..." And for the record, no, I do not believe teaching children Christianity constitutes child abuse. Some of the more virulent strains, probably cross that line at some point, but mainline Christianity lacks the malicious intent necessary."<br /><br />So you feel to constitute child abuse it must first include malicious intent ? .Really Jeff ??<br /><br />So you are saying for instance, should a father wish to have sex with his young children ,just as long as its not done with any "malicious intent" , but is instead argued it is done with just wishing to have "close cotact" and "make love" to them . <br /><br />It dont happen to constitute child abuse , because it didnt include the "malicious intent" to cause harm ??.<br /><br />Sorry Jeff , "personally" i just cant see how to agree with you.<br /><br />I dont care whether church folk "maliciously intend" to harm their children or not .Harm of little children is harm in my book , and its still "specially" stinks like hell ! when its the "little children" that are on the receiving end being bullied by "adult" faith freaks wishing to threaten and frighten children into submission to their faith, with use of frightening suggestions of eternal damnation in some place they call hell , a place called hell that aint even been proved to actually honestly exist yet !.<br /><br />Maybe it would be fair if it was "proved" thing there was actually honestly some real danger these children needed to be made aware of , such as children being made aware of the very grave danger thats been proved to actually honestly exist, for little children playing on roads etc.Thats fair enough.<br /><br />But to suggest abuse always needs to contain "malicious intent". To my thinking you then might as well also say all the actions of gangs are just fine sweet and dandy as !, just so long as these gang members didnt really actually mean to have this "malicious intent" to actually frighten and cause harm to any people.<br /><br />And then torrists would be fine and dandy too , just so long as it was all about honesty of their chosen "faith beliefs" , and not really simply just about any "malicious intent" to specially choose to cause harm to somebody.<br /><br />Why the hell do you think all these abusive nasty people have gotten the "right" to exist in this planet of ours in the first place Jeff.<br /><br />Ill tell you why i think it is , i think its because of all this general pussy-footing around that some people get into continually promoting.<br /><br />Time we cut the crap harm is harm intended of unintended .<br /><br />If we have different judgement of folks depending on whether it was about "malicious intent" or not ,then sure thats fair enough .<br /><br />But please, lets atleast start to try to get away from this old ancient barbaric "outdated" idea of continually making "excuses" and "loop-holes" for peoples "rights" to personally choose to be harmful to others around them.<br /><br />You suggest its fine and dandy for certain folks rights to cause harm ,and then seem so keen to quickly jump on some extremely "hurt and harmed" people , such as our good friend Exreformed , and then you wish to also call this as being justice ??.<br /><br />This so called "justice" stinks like hell !! , in my opinion.It really truly sucks big time ! JeffGandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37891551389503806802010-10-29T01:09:10.567-04:002010-10-29T01:09:10.567-04:00Jeffrey A. Myers said...
"@ Exreformed
Desp...Jeffrey A. Myers said... <br />"@ Exreformed<br /><br />Despicable. Your proposal is appalling, offensive, disgusting.<br /><br />While the endless evasion, ignorance, godbotting and historical ignorance is annoying your proposal is simply nauseating. Theists have every right to believe what they wish so long as they don't harm others. Your beliefs no more entitle you to harm others than theirs."<br /><br /><br />@Jeffery ,while i do understand and do even agree with much of what you have suggested .Sadly it seems to me you miss the point that indeed its quite obvious, present laws of freedom of faith "do indeed" still allow for faith to very often be " very harmful" to far to many people .<br /><br />What you are suggesting is like saying even though twin towers in New York might get demolished and blown to peices by nasty aspects of the terrorists of life.This doesnt "entitle" the USA to try and seek some sort of final closure to the problem, even with use of some force if need be, if they honestly feel they finally really see little other hope of any other option working in obtaining some closure to the problem they face.<br /><br />Look humans are human ,its simply a fact ! we are not clones of this Jesus charactor.Life just doesnt "always" work with use of this turning the other cheek bullshit.If it did we wouldnt even need any prisons or even be forced to sometimes need to displine our children.<br /><br />I suggest it seems maybe? you also have some sort of faith in expecting miracles to possibly happen also.Lets at least try and get a little real here, we need to realize and accept, sometimes fire needs to feel some fire also, before its ever going to be able to be dealt with properly.<br /><br />And for far to long now far too many folks have just been pussy-footing around ,with regards to dealing honestly with the abuse of faiths issues.Sadly its a fact of life we cant always rely on pissing around forever with endless "niceties" and endless talkies when the problem at hand actually demands some real (("action")) thats actually been long overdue.<br /><br />Think about such matters as reform of slavery and racism etc .Sadly it took the onset of some "angry action" before more folks that were peacefully a slumbering ! finally decided it best that they awoke out of their little cozyholes ! and decided it best they finally got their shit together to find some sort of real remedy.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9706110338196839222010-10-29T01:00:32.725-04:002010-10-29T01:00:32.725-04:00Ana said...
exreformed,
There's a term for w...Ana said... <br />exreformed,<br /><br />There's a term for what you're describing. It's called, "systematic extermination"."<br /><br /><br />While i know i dont agree with what Exreformed said .So happens ive walked a mile or two myself in the same type of moccasins Exreformed experienced wearing ,and so i at least have some understanding of the painful blisters faiths can form on some peoples feet after feeling forced into having to be wearing them to feel like being acepted.<br /><br />@ Ana i see is so quick to point out what Exreformed mentions as being "systematic extermination" .Yet i see Ana is very slow to admit maybe the nastiness of faith that Exreformed was forced to need to deal with, was maybe actually very little different.<br /><br />People like Ana are quick to judge people like Exreformed ,yet very gutlessly slow at understanding that if a dog gets kicked enough times over, soon enough it will simply turn into a pitbull ! ready to rip somebodies throat out in return for abuse its been FORCED to experience.Its this type of utter ignorance that people like Ana slip into slumber with, that actually allows these abusive faiths the rights to continue onwards.<br /><br />When so many utter idiots like Ana do so very little about dogs getting the shit continually kicked out of them ,what do these foolish idiots expect other than angry pitbulls to be evolving ?.<br /><br />These faith twits who often get involved in doing absolutely nothing "active" about remeding such ongoing problems, are obviously so caught up in such faith of expectations of miracles happening , it becomes obvious parts of their brains shut down and seems they almost expect the bloody impossible might suddenly happen.<br /><br />Many of these people are obviously very well educated ,yet still become rather extremely thick ! for lack of being able to think at all outside the square.If they dont have somebody to teach em , they aint ever able to actually put 2 and 2 together on their own steam.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18816384513683005222010-10-28T21:19:34.198-04:002010-10-28T21:19:34.198-04:00I hate to say, but listening to Christians babble ...I hate to say, but listening to Christians babble about "Objective Morality" makes me laugh. First off, the Bible supports immorality and atrocities that even Stalin would have trouble matching. This source of "objective morality" that Christians adhere to okays polygamy, slavery, beating your slaves to death, genocide and mass murder.<br />But ask any modern Christian(excluding Fundamentalists) if these actions are okay, and he/she will automatically no. If God is completely perfect and holy as Christians claim, then why would he ordain this barbarism? Why would he tolerate such evil, even for a moment? The very existence of the O.T. and all the xenophobic/homophobic totalitarianism within disproves the notion of a "loving, perfect, benevolent, living God".<br />And Christians are actually ignorant enough of their own holy book to claim that Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians. Really? Let's see what the Jewish Cosmic Zombie has to say about this.<br /><br />"(17)Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (18)For assuredly, I say to you, til Heaven and Earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (19)Whoever therefore breaks the least of these commandments(uh-oh; watch out, danielg), and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven; but does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven(looks like Crusaders, Inquisitors, and Witch Hunters are going to heaven, doesn't it?). (20)For I say to you, unless righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of Heaven."<br /><br />-Matthew 5, verses 17 to 20.<br /><br /><br />Christianity is one of the most worthless, moronic cults on the face of the earth. Christian Morality is ever-changing, and a more subjective morality simply can't be found. So go on, Christians; tell us all about your objective morality(that, upon close examination, has absolutely nothing "moral" about it).<br /><br />Peace out.B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8013195748629610162010-10-28T17:05:41.798-04:002010-10-28T17:05:41.798-04:00And thanks, Jeffrey - for both the compliment, and...And thanks, Jeffrey - for both the compliment, and the technical backup!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81361069135218332412010-10-28T16:37:58.457-04:002010-10-28T16:37:58.457-04:00@danielg
Hah! Yes, "last word," well......@danielg<br /><br />Hah! Yes, "last word," well...<br /><br />In my defense, I meant the last word on the relative goodness/badness of theism and atheism thread, not the separate topic of evolution. I think all of my subsequent posts go to that topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73778022742607305382010-10-28T16:35:27.338-04:002010-10-28T16:35:27.338-04:00Actually, I saw some last night, including your po...Actually, I saw some last night, including your post about giving me the last word, but now they are gone, along with some of my responses. Time to upgrade from blogger....danielghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442435994163863699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7018817770036689352010-10-28T16:32:34.371-04:002010-10-28T16:32:34.371-04:00@ Clamat, Danielg
I noticed that too. I received...@ Clamat, Danielg<br /><br />I noticed that too. I received it. Your earlier post provided an excellent takedown of the article, though I'm sure it will be insufficient for Danny. It's a shame it didn't go through.<br /><br />In case you didn't get it Danielg<br /><br />"@danielg<br /><br />At the risk of totally derailing this thread, I have checked out your posts on evolution. Please understand that I simply don’t have time to read everything you’ve posted on the subject, so I'll only engage the first. I'm relatively confident that will be enough.<br /><br />Mass Delusion – Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution<br /><br />An initial matter: You were quick to trot out your undergraduate degree in biochemistry, but it won’t surprise you that I place little stock in it. Your scientific credentials outweigh mine, no doubt, but many people who fully endorse evolution have far more illustrious credentials than you.<br /><br />Which brings me to your first claim:<br /><br />Many scientists have never studied biology and don’t understand evolutionary claims<br /><br />For clarity, I’ll call this “Claim 1.”<br /><br />What is the basis for Claim 1? Have you taken a comprehensive poll of “scientists” about their knowledge of biology, or investigated their understanding of evolutionary claims? Further, Claim 1 suggests that you understand biology and evolutionary claims better than these unidentified “many scientists.” What is the basis for this unstated claim?<br /><br />It can’t be your vaunted undergraduate chemistry degree, because in defending Claim 1 you actually dismiss chemistry as affording nothing more than “supporting data” for evolution, and assert that every other discipline must look to biology for “central” knowledge of evolution.<br /><br />(Aside: Your admission that there’s an awful lot of supporting data for evolution from a myriad of widely-varied disciplines seriously undermines your claim that the evidence supporting evolution is “laughably weak.”)<br /><br />In any event, I dispute the premise that biology is the only discipline that affords “direct” knowledge of evolution. I’d wager (but, unlike you, won’t claim to know) most practicing biologists would hesitate to say this.<br /><br />Even if biology enjoys primacy, this simply means you initially asked the wrong question, which should be: Why do the Majority of Biologists Believe in Evolution?<br /><br />Apparently biologists must be ignorant of biology, too.<br /><br />Or do you claim that an undergraduate biochemistry degree plus “working through the data” affords you greater knowledge of biology than actual, working biologists? Or are all biologists, like all scientists from all other disciplines, simply engaged in “group think,” too?<br /><br />In sum, Claim 1 is without any basis. There is no basis for your claim that you have knowledge equivalent, much less superior to that of actual “scientists.” There is no basis for the claim that scientists who support evolution are ignorant of its claims, are “involved in group think,” or cannot analyze data independently. There is no basis for your contention that only biology offers “direct” evidence of evolution. There is no basis for your contention that “many scientists just take the biologists’ word for it.”<br /><br />Most of the remainder of your Claims fall under the same “bias / indoctrination / group-think / world-view” umbrella. As before, these claims are simply baseless contentions that all scientists who endorse evolution must be incapable of independent thought. (Of course, scientists who question evolution undoubtedly are models of independent thinking!) These aspersions are made without resort to a shred of evidence or meaningful analysis.<br /><br />They are especially laughable given that the only actual evidence of bias, world-view or indoctrination in your post appears in Claim 10:<br /><br />The fallen nature of man wants to deny God, and is blinded both by it’s own sinfulness and the spiritually dark forces of this world.<br /><br />Ah, to conclude a discussion of science with such a lucid example of independent, unbiased, scientific, evidence-based thought.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />clamat"Jeffrey A. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03932419322314950738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36550168685723635582010-10-28T16:28:29.059-04:002010-10-28T16:28:29.059-04:00@danielg
Hmmm, I attempted to post several things...@danielg<br /><br />Hmmm, I attempted to post several things which do not appear on the board, prior to my "why did evolution catch on" post, to which you've responded. I won't respond in turn until I see the others post, and you've had an opportunity to address those as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85651264325219165782010-10-28T16:13:46.395-04:002010-10-28T16:13:46.395-04:00>> XREF: All you to is try to ram your stupi...>> XREF: All you to is try to ram your stupid articles down our throat. You are constantly linking to some crap that backs up what you say. Like anyone is going to spend three frigin hours reading those links.<br /><br />That's called 'providing evidence.' Try it sometime. I decided to link to things I had previously written on the subject rather than copy/paste them here, esp. when they are off topic. I understand that you might not want o read them, it's a lot of stuff.<br /><br />>> CLAMAT: why did the theory of evolution succeed so powerfully, so completely, in the beginning, and to such a degree that it now constitutes 'doctrine' or a 'worldview'?<br /><br />That's a good question, and a couple of authors have addressed the historic and sociologic background that made the rapid ascent of Darwinism happen. I haven't read them, but could perhaps guess at the reasons, including:<br /><br />a. the lack of any other materialist theory of origins<br /><br />b. the modern/industrial revolution that caused us to look at life more as a machine than a creation (though machines are designed too), and the rise of secularism<br /><br />c. it's initially strong explanatory power based on morphology (now being reversed by genetic discoveries)<br /><br />But I'm not sure.danielghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442435994163863699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75196325971521375462010-10-28T15:43:33.914-04:002010-10-28T15:43:33.914-04:00@danielg
I actually missed something quite import...@danielg<br /><br />I actually missed something quite important regarding your answer to the question why the majority of scientists believe in evolution.<br /><br />As I noted, the bulk of your answers boil down to “indoctrination, group-think, incapacity to think independently, presuppositions, born into a world-view,” etc.<br /><br />All of this simply begs the question: Assuming modern scientists simply accept the theory of evolution unthinkingly, as received wisdom, <b><i>why</i></b> did the theory of evolution succeed so powerfully, so completely, <i><b>in the beginning</b></i>, and to such a degree that it now constitutes “doctrine” or a “worldview”?<br /><br />And once again, your Claim 10 is the only one that touches on this question. God, sin, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30778083569464022402010-10-28T15:22:06.715-04:002010-10-28T15:22:06.715-04:00@danielg
At the risk of totally derailing this th...@danielg<br /><br />At the risk of totally derailing this thread, I have checked out your posts on evolution. Please understand that I simply don’t have time to read everything you’ve posted on the subject, so I'll only engage the first. I'm relatively confident that will be enough.<br /><br /><i>Mass Delusion – Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution</i><br /><br />An initial matter: You were quick to trot out your undergraduate degree in biochemistry, but it won’t surprise you that I place little stock in it. Your scientific credentials outweigh mine, no doubt, but <b><i>many</i></b> people who fully endorse evolution have <b><i>far</i></b> more illustrious credentials than you.<br /><br />Which brings me to your first claim:<br /><br /><i>Many scientists have never studied biology and don’t understand evolutionary claims</i><br /><br />For clarity, I’ll call this “Claim 1.”<br /><br />What is the basis for Claim 1? Have you taken a comprehensive poll of “scientists” about their knowledge of biology, or investigated their understanding of evolutionary claims? Further, Claim 1 suggests that <b><i>you</i></b> understand biology and evolutionary claims <b><i>better</i></b> than these unidentified “many scientists.” What is the basis for <b><i>this</i></b> unstated claim?<br /><br />It can’t be your vaunted undergraduate chemistry degree, because in defending Claim 1 you actually <i><b>dismiss</b></i> chemistry as affording nothing more than “supporting data” for evolution, and assert that every other discipline must look to biology for “central” knowledge of evolution.<br /><br />(Aside: Your admission that <i><b>there’s an awful lot of supporting data for evolution from a myriad of widely-varied disciplines</b></i> seriously undermines your claim that the evidence supporting evolution is “laughably weak.”)<br /><br />In any event, I dispute the premise that biology is the only discipline that affords “direct” knowledge of evolution. I’d wager (but, unlike you, won’t claim to know) most practicing biologists would hesitate to say this.<br /><br />Even if biology enjoys primacy, this simply means you initially asked the wrong question, which should be: <b><i>Why do the Majority of </i>Biologists<i> Believe in Evolution?</i></b><br /><br />Apparently biologists must be ignorant of biology, too.<br /><br />Or do you claim that an undergraduate biochemistry degree <i><b>plus</b></i> “working through the data” affords you greater knowledge of biology than actual, working biologists? Or are all biologists, like all scientists from all other disciplines, simply engaged in “group think,” too?<br /><br />In sum, Claim 1 is without any basis. There is no basis for your claim that you have knowledge <b><i>equivalent</i></b>, much less superior to that of actual “scientists.” There is no basis for the claim that scientists who support evolution are ignorant of its claims, are “involved in group think,” or cannot analyze data independently. There is no basis for your contention that only biology offers “direct” evidence of evolution. There is no basis for your contention that “many scientists just take the biologists’ word for it.”<br /><br />Most of the remainder of your Claims fall under the same “bias / indoctrination / group-think / world-view” umbrella. As before, these claims are simply baseless contentions that all scientists who endorse evolution must be incapable of independent thought. (Of course, scientists who question evolution undoubtedly are models of independent thinking!) These aspersions are made without resort to a shred of evidence or meaningful analysis.<br /><br />They are especially laughable given that the only actual evidence of bias, world-view or indoctrination in your post appears in Claim 10:<br /><br /><i>The fallen nature of man wants to deny God, and is blinded both by it’s own sinfulness and the spiritually dark forces of this world.</i><br /><br />Ah, to conclude a discussion of science with such a lucid example of independent, unbiased, scientific, evidence-based thought.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />clamatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9215183837416352392010-10-28T09:36:55.122-04:002010-10-28T09:36:55.122-04:00@ Danielg
You call me a troll!
All you to is try ...@ Danielg<br />You call me a troll!<br /><br />All you to is try to ram your stupid articles down our throat. You are constantly linking to some crap that backs up what you say. Like anyone is going to spend three frigin hours reading those links.<br /><br />Jeffery kicked your ass anyway.<br /><br />I Can't wait for the camps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48657509051949064522010-10-28T02:15:05.645-04:002010-10-28T02:15:05.645-04:00@danielg
Claims to knowledge do not lead to justi...@danielg<br /><br /><b><i>Claims to knowledge do not lead to justifying cruelty.</i></b><br /><br />Can you actually say this with a straight face? <br /><br />“I <b><i>know</i></b> ‘thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,’ therefore I will put this woman to the torch.”<br /><br />“I <b><i>know</i></b> my child will recover from this infection only if Jesus wills it, therefore I will deny her penicillin.”<br /><br />“I <b><i>know</i></b> Allah commands death to infidels, therefore I will fly this plane into this building.”<br /><br />“I <b><i>know</i></b> God condemns homosexuality. America does not condemn homosexuality, therefore I will scream ‘God hates fags’ at the funerals of American servicemen.”<br /><br />People have and will justified their cruelties, stupidities and bigotries by resort to any number of moralities.<br /><br />But you concede atheism is not a world view, and doesn’t “teach” anything. Given this, it is difficult to see how you can maintain atheism necessarily leads to certain outcomes.<br /><br />On the hand, theism and claimed knowledge to objective moralities teach something very specific and unique: How to <b><i>ignore</i></b> one’s conscience: “I don’t see how this action can be morally sufficient, but God is commanding it, and who am I to question God, so it must be morally sufficient, so I have no choice but to do it.”<br /><br /><i>Christianity teaches against such things, and by adhering to it, you could not arrive at cruelty.</i><br /><br />And yet, throughout history, countless people who identified themselves as Christian, plenty of whom studied Christian teachings just as extensively and seriously as you, arrived at cruelty. How do you explain this?<br /><br /><i>In the cases of "Christian atrocities," we could easily argue that these were exceptions by those who contradicted Christianity.</i><br /><br />With a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Of course.<br /><br />I do not see how anything can be accomplished by addressing this common and simple fallacy, or the argument it underpins, any further. I thank you for the civil discussion. Other than a final post-script, I cede the last word to you.<br /><br />Post-script:<br /><br /><i>I have a biochemistry degree, and have worked through the data myself. I think evolution is interesting but laughably unsupported by empirical evidence, and have written extensively on it.</i><br /><br />You’ve worked through “the data” yourself, eh? I look forward to seeing you in Stockholm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36620249689081255372010-10-28T00:56:14.212-04:002010-10-28T00:56:14.212-04:00>> CLAMAT: I am not surprised in the slighte...>> CLAMAT: I am not surprised in the slightest that you doubt the fact of evolution.<br /><br />I am not surprised that you buy it. I have a biochemistry degree, and have worked through the data myself. I think evolution is interesting but laughably unsupported by empirical evidence, and have written extensively on it. I'm sure you've heard it all, but here's a couple gems from my pen.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wholereason.com/2006/12/mass-delusion-10-reasons-why-the-majority-of-scientists-believe-in-evolution.html" rel="nofollow">Mass Delusion - 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution</a><br /><a href="http://www.wholereason.com/2005/08/evolutions-impact-on-science.html" rel="nofollow">Evolution�s Impact on Science</a><br /><a href="http://www.wholereason.com/2005/11/why-do-tempers-flare-regarding-evolution.html" rel="nofollow">Why Do Tempers Flare Regarding Evolution?</a><br /><a href="http://www.wholereason.com/2008/02/13-misconceptions-about-evolution.html" rel="nofollow">13 Misconceptions About Evolution</a>danielghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442435994163863699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90046921132695163292010-10-28T00:46:19.196-04:002010-10-28T00:46:19.196-04:00>> JEFFREY: One can READILY follow the Bible...>> JEFFREY: One can READILY follow the Bible and arrive at all manner of cruelty. As has been done throughout history and as Clamat and I have both pointed out ad nauseum.<br /><br />I haven't seen any historical details, only accusations and an overuse of the phrase 'ad naseum' which you have used ad nauseum. I think you must have a weak constitution.<br /><br />So where did Christianity lead to cruelty? I've spent article debunking the exaggerations and misattributions of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and witch hunts. You got more than that? Just see the numbers killed by your atheist buddies in history, it's shameful. See <a href="http://www.wholereason.com/2006/11/atheist-atrocities.html" rel="nofollow">Atheist Atrocities</a>. <br /><br />>> JEFFREY: Appeals to a 'higher law' have done nothing to engender a more moral society.<br /><br />Yeah, 'we hold these truths to be self evident' and all the work of Martin Luther King Jr, what a load of crap. <br /><br />>> JEFFREY: As Clamat pointed out, even by your formulation, appeals to Higher Law can easily generate incredibly twisted outcomes especially when adherents ascribe to the more literalist interpretations of these sacred scrolls. <br /><br />Um, examples please? IN theory, yes, in history, not so much, and as I said, the GOOD done by Christianity far outweighs its misapplications in history. The same can not be said for atheism. I assume by sacred scrolls you mean the Bible, not the Koran, which is murderous.<br /><br />>> JEFFREY: Sounds crazy, and evil, but who am I to question God/Allah/Xenu. Good enough for me, let�s go!" <br /><br />While crazy people may do that, your understanding of the use of Scripture and experience in Christianity proper may be lacking - this is not how things work, since are to measure all of our 'hearing' agaisnt the scriptures. Sure, you could convince yourself that God told you to eradicate some people, but that is not only contrary to the NT, the actual spirit of God would not lead one to do that.<br /><br />Hence, abortion doctor murders are almost non-existent, proving that the thing you claim is really an edge case, not a mainstay.<br /><br />>> JEFFREY: This mentality has led to infinitely more suffering than denial of God/ Allah/Xenu's existence has ever done.<br /><br />Yeah, um, as long as you forget about Stalin, Mao, etc.<br /><br />>> JEFFREY: Most if not all Atheists believe that the human moral code is biologically ingrained, a hardwired evolutionary adaptation. <br /><br />I'm sure I could learn more about this far fetched theory, but on it's face, it seems like a non-sequitur. While, for example, certain actions among chimps may be measured as altruistic, that does not make them objectively moral. I mean, they're not moral just because they perpetuate the species, are they? Otherwise, you could justify killing off the weak.<br /><br />But if you assume that certain actions are moral, on what basis do you do that? It doens't matter if you think it arose as part of evolution.<br /><br />>> JEFFREY: The fact that you express a preference for a teleological moral system in no way mandates that any other system is either logically or practically invalid.<br /><br />I am not the only one explaining that 'deontologtical moral codes' dont' solve the problem of subjectivity in morality, and neither do they solve the problem of atheism removing the external referent needed for objective confirmation of morality.<br /><br />And high-minded philosophy aside, atheism has shown it's colors in history to me, no matter what gymnastics atheists use to try to convince themselves that there is not God and that's a harmless view.danielghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442435994163863699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77226000001929793322010-10-28T00:32:45.417-04:002010-10-28T00:32:45.417-04:00>> JEFFREY: I could cite chapter and verse f...>> JEFFREY: I could cite chapter and verse for each of the above propositions out of your allegedly true book, (and the Quran) but that would constitute quote mining, which I know is only appropriate when you are a Christian (or Muslim) seeking to heap condemnation on disfavored groups so I won't bother.<br /><br />Please, spare me your dripping low brow sarcasm. I could pull those verses out too, but here's what you are missing, either out of ignorance or malice.<br /><br />1. In both Christianity and Islam, later scriptures interpret or overrule earlier. In Christianity, that means Jesus and the NT writers re-interpret the OT, and so the dietary and ceremonial laws, as well as the punishments for the moral law, are not in force for Christianity.<br /><br />And in the OT, they were for Israel, and not considered global. The only capital crime considered global from the OT is when God instructed Noah that a man's life could be taken for murder. This is why I have argued that even child molesters should not be executed from a Christian POV.<br /><br />2. In Islam, the LATER scriptures talk of murdering unbelievers and such, so that is what is in force in Islam. Further, while Jesus taught love your enemies, Mohammed taught kill them with the sword. So your comparison of the two is really ignorant of the facts, not to mention modern history.<br /><br />3. I am not trying to avoid the difficult passages of the OT, for neither Christ nor the NT condemn the God-commanded warfare of the OT. But again, they are not prescriptive, had a purpose in that time, and can be defended morally, even if you are aghast at such a claim.<br /><br />That aside, this string is about atheism, and I stand by my contention that atheism is partially and perhaps primarily responsible for the atrocities of atheist tyrants due to it's logical outcomes. I find that historically and logically consistent, and the only reason I am here defending Christianity is that you want to paint it the same way, but I don't find that Christian ideas inexorably lead that way, but the opposite way.<br /><br />Atheism has never created much good that I can see, while Christianity's historical merits fill books, and it's foibles are exaggerated by anti-Catholic enlightenment scholars, and pale in compariso to both Christianity's good and atheism's historical murderous outcomes.danielghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442435994163863699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-375343401518287702010-10-28T00:23:25.229-04:002010-10-28T00:23:25.229-04:00>> JEFFREY: 1. Christianity most certainly d...>> JEFFREY: 1. Christianity most certainly does NOT teach against cruelty. <br /><br />Your mistake. Your problem is that you conflate Judaism and Christianity, not understanding where they overlap and where they do not. Let me deconstruct your list to set you straight.<br /><br />But before I address your list, you do understand that<br /><br />a. The ceremonial law (sacrifices) and dietary laws were symbolic and no longer binding as far as Christians are concerned.<br /><br />b. The moral law is shared by Judaism and Christianity, but the prescribed punishments do not apply because <br /> 1. We are not under the Mosaic covenants, but the Noahic and New Covenant.<br /> 2. You'll note that none of the prescribed punishments of the OT are seen in the NT church<br /> 3. Those punishments were meant only for Israel.<br /> <br />c. The warfare of the OT was not prescriptive for spirituality, but merely descriptive of individual situations that Israel found itself in. In the NT, Paul asserts that "our warfare is not against flesh and blood," so you can't really say that Christianity prescribes such things, though it does not condemn the OT warfare, not should it, imo.<br /><br />d. What you call 'genocide' was a one time action taken upon a wicked people, who, interstingly, were still around in later generations.<br /><br />e. Only Islam prescribes the OT punishments as universal to mankind, but Christianity denies that explicitly.<br /><br />As to your list, let me defend against your poorly concieved list:<br /><br />a. <b>Slavery</b> - while Philemon does not condemn slavery, and while the OT did affirm taking slaves during warfare, the NT does not 'endorse' (your word) slavery. <br /><br />In fact, it prohibits kidnanpping, so chattle slavery is not permitted, and the type seen in the OT may likely have been indentured servitude. <br /><br />Also, you must remember that, despite the fact that some defended slavery using the Bible (which is admittedly unclear on the subject, hence your own accusations), Christianity is the ONLY ideology to have conquered slavery in world history - it drove abolition in both Europe and the US, something tha the Greeks, Romans, and secularists just never did.<br /><br />Proof is in the pudding.<br /><br />b. <b>Genocide, invasion, occupation, warfare</b> - again, no use of swords in the NT. Your mistake is that you assume that the historical events were (1) genocidal, and (2) endorsed by Christianity. The fact that Christianity has not pursued genocide in history disproves your contention. You want to count American Indians? I can show you examples of Christians defending them against Colonial cruelty, which was more driven by desperation, fear, and greed, not Christian genocide.<br /><br />c. <b>Misogyny</b> - exaggeration at best, a lie at worst. As I described in <a href="http://www.wholereason.com/2009/07/part-ii-how-christianity-changed-the-world-life-sex-marriage-status-of-women.html" rel="nofollow">Part II: How Christianity changed the world - Life, Sex, Marriage & Status of Women</a>, Christianity has universally lifted the estate of women. Perhaps you'd like to quote scripture and verse to support your claim.<br /><br />d. <b>Homophobia</b> - [puke]. Whatever. Condemnation of sexual immorality is standard stuff. You call that a sin. You've got it backwards.danielghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442435994163863699noreply@blogger.com