quote:Assuming I trust you even know how often Hitler cited anything when making decisions I am not sure why your point even matters.
Here's why my point matters:
When a person points the finger at 'Darwinism' as Hitler's justification for his genocide, they are doing two things. They are saying
1. Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview
and
2. Evolution was a root cause of the holocaust and has the potential to create similar ills
Not only is this historical factoid wrong (Hitler based his core ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy), it sets one up into a baffling moral quandary.
Evolution is descriptive. If you say that it is immoral, you are saying that attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.
When people pull the 'hitler's darwinism' card, they are being very selective readers, ignoring Hitler's religious justifications and pointing the finger at evolutionary theory, and then saying that evolution promotes racism. In reality, one should do neither. Hitler's views were a perversion of both religion and science; anyone who decides that it was a representative usage of one or the other is cherrypicking to create pejorative associations.
This is why reducto positions like Ron's are best left ignored. They're worthless agitprop.
Well then simply point out that Hitler misunderstood evolution and its moral applications, just as he misunderstood Christianity and its applications.
It just seemed like you were taking the same cheap shot at religion that Ron took at evolution.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It just seemed like you were taking the same cheap shot at religion that Ron took at evolution.
It's more effective to rebut the "you and Hitler are on the same side" argument by pointing out somewhere where Hitler was arguably on the same side as the person making the claim rather than just saying "no he wasn't."
I would never claim that Hitler was a Christian as a way to take a cheap shot at religion, but I'd happily answer the claim that evolution was the driving force behind his evil with a Hitler quote paying lip service to Christianity, such as "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
You'll find that this sort of quotation is almost always used in a defensive fashion in response to attacks by Christians equating atheism or belief in evolution with Nazism.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
I wasn't defining it (which would be hard to do), because I don't think it really matters for the purposes of this discussion, as long as you don't think God can be considered material. There are people who have thought that we can logically deduce that God is the cause of all things in the world. By the definition you just gave, these people would be "strict materialists" since they believe every observable effect has a deducible cause (God), and I strongly suspect you would not really categorize them as such.
But they are determinists - Theological Determinists.
quote:See, I specifically reject the possibility that such a particle could pop in and out of existence for "no reason."
Do you mean you think that is logically impossible, like a square circle? Or do you just mean that, although it doesn't logically contradict itself, scientifically it can't actually ever happen in any universe?
quote:I wasn't defining it (which would be hard to do), because I don't think it really matters for the purposes of this discussion, as long as you don't think God can be considered material.
I DO actually think that God can be considered material, if He exists. In fact, if He has any effect on the world, He must be material. The problem is that there's not a single effect for which a sentient God is actually a deducible cause, so anyone who claims otherwise -- although they might aspire to an argument -- is floating on nothing.
quote:Do you mean you think that is logically impossible, like a square circle?
I mean that it's logically impossible, since one of my starting premises is that all effects have causes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well then simply point out that Hitler misunderstood evolution and its moral applications, just as he misunderstood Christianity and its applications.
It just seemed like you were taking the same cheap shot at religion that Ron took at evolution.
I think Samprimary was making his comparison satirically, whereas Ron made his in all seriousness. Samp doesn't actually think that Hitler's appeal to religion were actually representative of religion's "moral applications," and he explicitly said as much in a later post that you apparently missed (or misread). Ron, on the other hand, clearly believes that (a) Hitler based his racism on evolutionary arguments and (b) that this somehow negates evolution's scientific standing. He is wrong, embarrassingly wrong, on both counts.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact, if He has any effect on the world, He must be material.
So does that mean you simply define physical as anything that has an effect on the world?
quote:The problem is that there's not a single effect for which a sentient God is actually a deducible cause, so anyone who claims otherwise -- although they might aspire to an argument -- is floating on nothing.
Says the agnostic/atheist. I suspect a large segment of society disagrees, including many philosophers, scientists, and theologists.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP, the way you choose to say it is unnecessarily pejorative. God did not create the universe and say to Himself, "I am going to deceive everybody and make the universe look ancient."
God created the universe the way He wanted it to be, in a mature state. He did not create sprouts and saplings in the Garden of Eden, He created full-grown trees and plants, so Adam and Eve could enjoy the flowers and eat the fruits right away. This is most likely the way an Intelligent God who is all-powerful would choose to create things.
Do not jump to the conclusion that I am saying God deliberately made the radiological clocks in the rock strata seem to be vastly old, for no reason but to deceive geologists. All those age dating techniques are suspect, because they depend upon prior assumptions which include assuming that geologic gradualism is truth. They are also contradicted by things like the amount of helium in the crustal granite, that shows it has been gradually perculating out of the rock for only thousands of years, not billions.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do not jump to the conclusion that I am saying God deliberately made the radiological clocks in the rock strata seem to be vastly old, for no reason but to deceive geologists.
I made so such claim. I simply asked what the basis for your belief that the apparently aged earth and universe is not so. I understand that you believe that God placed things in "mature" form, but I'm trying to understand why you believe that.
Am I correct that you start from the premise that biblical account is literally correct and that all evidence must either confirm that account or is being misinterpreted?
quote:They are also contradicted by things like the amount of helium in the crustal granite, that shows it has been gradually perculating out of the rock for only thousands of years, not billions.
Surely you realize that claims like this have been pretty thoroughly debunked by scientists in the relevant fields. I won't insult your intelligence by posting the relevant links as I'm sure you're already aware of their existence. If you really want to debate a particular creationist claim, start a thread on it and I'll be happy to discuss it with you.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: All those age dating techniques are suspect, because they depend upon prior assumptions which include assuming that geologic gradualism is truth.
I don't know if this is true, I'm not a geologist.
But if I have to chose between assuming that geologic gradualism is truth and assuming that a thousand year old book is literally accurate in every detail...I'm siding with the geologists.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: God created the universe the way He wanted it to be, in a mature state. He did not create sprouts and saplings in the Garden of Eden, He created full-grown trees and plants, so Adam and Eve could enjoy the flowers and eat the fruits right away. This is most likely the way an Intelligent God who is all-powerful would choose to create things.
If you see a thin ring in a tree, that means it was a lean year. If you see a thicker ring, it means it was a better year. The fact that you have rings at all is indicative of a seasonal climate. The tree went through a changing climate.
So when we say “the tree rings indicate that the tree is 10,000 years old”, what that means is “the tree shows evidence of having been through 10,000 summers, and 10,000 winters. The tree shows evidence of going through this average year, this good year, these two bad years, another good year, another average year...the rings indicate that the tree went through 10,000 years of events”. You are claiming that God just put 10,000 rings to indicate that the tree went through 10,000 summers, when in fact it didn’t. You are claiming that God put the particular sequence of thick and thin rings to indicate that the tree had seen 10,000 years of plentiful and lean and in between years, in a particular order, when it didn’t.
Clever liars include lots of details. The cleverest ones do not.
Well, you believe that your God included details about the quality of thousands of different winters and summers that never actually happened.
Just don’t be surprised when people tell you that they believe in a cleverer God than yours. Or a more honest one.
quote: Do not jump to the conclusion that I am saying God deliberately made the radiological clocks in the rock strata seem to be vastly old, for no reason but to deceive geologists. All those age dating techniques are suspect, because they depend upon prior assumptions which include assuming that geologic gradualism is truth.
I assume it is pointless to ask you to explain why Buddhist, Hindu, Daoist, Muslim, Jewish, and evem most Christian scientists all agree on how best to interpret the data, and why the only people who think there is a massive problem are also those who a priori believe based on faith that the earth must be very young?
If your objections to mainstream science are so reasonable, why aren't there at least hundreds of Buddhist and Hindu scientists agreeing with your reasoning?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
... I hate to even think about posting into this... but... some things to ponder.
say 6 days to create a universe... do you take the word day literally at the very beginning? How long is a day to a god?
Also (I'm gonna get blasted on this), scientific fact is flawed. It is merely an accumulation of evidence thus far. Just because another result has never been recorded to date, doesn't mean it can't happen. If your odds are a billion to 1 against, you can see something not happen 999,999,999 times, and think up to that point, that it is impossible it will ever happen. Then comes number 1,000,000,000, and the whole thing is debunked.
I believe it's best to keep an open mind. Someone said earlier, science and religion should be balanced. But more and more, religion is tossed out the window in favor of "pure science". Or the zealots refuse to listen to science, believing only in what their religion tells them to be true. Go out, experience the world, make your own conclusions. But keep in mind, sometimes the impossible can and does happen.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Science and religion both have one thing in common on the theory of the beginnings of the universe.
Religion postulates that the universe was created by a being that has ALWAYS been around.
Science claims that the universe has ALWAYS been around.
Either way, both sides agree that it is possible for something to have an infinite span, or at least an infinite span to the past. But if there is an infinite span to the past, then by definition there can be no end. So... either god will always be around, or the universe will always be around, in one form or another. At this point, science and religion agree, the only argument is the name of the thing.
At least that's the way I see it.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Science claims that the universe has ALWAYS been around."
No it doesn't. The curretn evidence in science suggests the universe began a specified time in the past, a number of billion of years ago.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But sometimes what we thought was impossible happens, thus turning out to be possible after all.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes2, I suspect that the trees in the Garden of Eden did not have annual growth rings. But they were still two hundred feet tall and yards thick.
MattP, you asked: "Am I correct that you start from the premise that biblical account is literally correct and that all evidence must either confirm that account or is being misinterpreted?" Yes. Just as all evolutionists start with the premise that any evidence that cannot readily be construed in such a way that it seems to harmonize with evolution and geological gradualism, is being misinterpreted. They may lie about it and profess scientific piety. But they are among the most biased people on the planet, even if they don't know it.
oldmansutton, in my view, Genesis does not teach God created the entire universe during the six days of Creation Week. Only the living biosphere on earth. (The statement "He made the stars also" in Genesis 1:16 is parenthetical, added simply to prevent anyone from supposing that maybe some other god might have made the stars.) Gen. 1:1 makes it clear that something was already here in the location of earth, when God began Creation Week.
[ June 12, 2007, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:MattP, you asked: "Am I correct that you start from the premise that biblical account is literally correct and that all evidence must either confirm that account or is being misinterpreted?" Yes. Just as all evolutionists start with the premise that any evidence that cannot readily be construed in such a way that it seems to harmonize with evolution and geological gradualism, is being misinterpreted.
Given these dueling dogmatisms, how do you suggest an impartial individual determine the truth?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just as all evolutionists start with the premise that any evidence that cannot readily be construed in such a way that it seems to harmonize with evolution and geological gradualism, is being misinterpreted.
It is definitely NOT true that ALL evolutionists start with that premise. I don't, for example.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: swbarnes2, I suspect that the trees in the Garden of Eden did not have annual growth rings. But they were still over a hundred feet tall and yards thick.
You "suspect"? So in other words, you're not only reinterpreting/misinterpreting evidence to best fit your preconceived notions, but you're actually making things up?
Wow.
quote:MattP, you asked: "Am I correct that you start from the premise that biblical account is literally correct and that all evidence must either confirm that account or is being misinterpreted?" Yes. Just as all evolutionists start with the premise that any evidence that cannot readily be construed in such a way that it seems to harmonize with evolution and geological gradualism, is being misinterpreted.
Except they don't. As we've pointed out to you inumerable times before, if someone found evidence that irrefutably falsified evolution by natural selection, they would be this century's Einstein. Nobel Prizes would be awarded. Careers would be made. Believe me, I would love to be the biologist that disproved evolution. I'd be set for life.
Now to be fair, a lot of modern molecular data is interpreted with the assumption that it is the end result of natural selection. But this is done precisely because there already exists 150 years' worth of research supporting evolutionary theory. It's as well-established, by excruciatingly rigorous examination, as the theory of gravitation, or the theory of relativity. Furthermore, there are still many thousands of scientists testing the basic assumptions of evolution every day, and not once have any of them found anything that disproves a single part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
quote:oldmansutton, in my view, Genesis does not teach God created the entire universe during the six days of Creation Week. Only the living biosphere on earth. (The statement "He made the stars also" in Genesis 1:16 is parenthetical, added simply to prevent anyone from supposing that maybe some other god might have made the stars. Gen. 1:1 makes it clear that something was already here in the location of earth, when God began Creation Week. [/QB]
Uh huh. So you're an "old earth, young life" creationist. I have to say that I've never heard that one before, which kinda belies your oft-repeated claim that your interpretation of Genesis is both correct and widely accepted by biblical scholars. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:how do you suggest an impartial individual determine the truth?
"... the search for fact. Not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Doctor Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall. So forget any ideas you've got about lost cities, exotic travel, and digging up the world. Do not follow maps to buried treasure and "X" never, ever, marks the spot. Seventy percent of all archaeology is done in the library. Research. Reading. We cannot afford to take mythology at face value."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"As we've pointed out to you inumerable times before, if someone found evidence that irrefutably falsified evolution by natural selection, they would be this century's Einstein. Nobel Prizes would be awarded. Careers would be made. Believe me, I would love to be the biologist that disproved evolution. I'd be set for life."
Sorry, but that is the most hopelessly naive statement I've read in years. Do you realize how many careers would be reduced to ruins if evolution were proven false? Consider, for example, the Leakeys. If evolution is false, then they have done nothing with their lives. Do you think they would take that sitting down?
I am not an old universe, young life on earther. I am a young universer too, I just don't think the universe was created at the same time as life on earth. As I have stated before, I believe the universe is probably in the neighborhood of ten thousand years old, and earth's biosphere is around six thousand years old. So I've got the YEYU people distraught with me too.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If evolution is false, then they have done nothing with their lives.
I wouldn't say that, any more than I'd say that all the priests and pastors out there have done nothing with their lives simply because there's no God.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tarsk said:
quote:"As we've pointed out to you inumerable times before, if someone found evidence that irrefutably falsified evolution by natural selection, they would be this century's Einstein. Nobel Prizes would be awarded. Careers would be made. Believe me, I would love to be the biologist that disproved evolution. I'd be set for life."
Sorry, but that is the most hopelessly naive statement I've read in years. Do you realize how many careers would be reduced to ruins if evolution were proven false?
Are you kidding? What do you think it is that scientists do? A scientist who is doing their job correctly is ALWAYS trying to prove existing theories false. That is the way of science.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you realize how many careers would be reduced to ruins if evolution were proven false?
Not very many, I suspect. Most evolutionary science is based on practical, observable effects of evolution rather than on evolutionary history. Even if the earth turned out to be 6000 years old and dinosaurs walked with man, the research that determines how viruses develop resistance to drugs will go on. Even the archaeologists will keep digging up their bones, tools, and huts. They'll just have to place everything on a different time scale.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary whined, "I guess Ron is busy with other people or is otherwise just not going to open any dialogue with my posts."
Samprimary, it's not like you're the only one in opposition to my positions posting here.
I have already made it clear that I disagree with you, and that I anticipated someone such as you would seek to deny what really is indisputable fact--Hitler did claim evolution justified his racism and genocide. No one can honestly deny that the belief that all species are in evolutionary competition must lead to the conclusion that the various races of man should be in competition too--and may the "fittest" survive!
You said: "This is why reducto positions like Ron's are best left ignored. They're worthless agitprop." So why don't you heed your own counsel and ignore me?
It is not reducto absurdum to draw a valid application from a general principle.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one can honestly deny that the belief that all species are in evolutionary competition must lead to the conclusion that the various races of man should be in competition too--and may the "fittest" survive!
You know what you're saying, here, Ron? That it's unthinkable for people to disagree with Hitler -- that because Hitler used evolution to justify genocide in the same way that Christians used Christianity to justify genocide, that we have to agree with Hitler's justification.
Do you believe that to be true?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... No one can honestly deny that the belief that all species are in evolutionary competition must lead to the conclusion that the various races of man should be in competition too--and may the "fittest" survive! ...
Perhaps you had best explain why you believe that there is link between the concept of race and that of a species.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We all knows that virtually any life can be bred for certain traits. Many species were selectively bred for desirable qualities long before Darwin was even born. The theory of evolution explains why selective breeding works, but it says nothing about what one should or should not do.
Eugenics was by no means an atheistic, evolutionist, or Nazi monopoly. From a mid-20th century Creationist, William J. Tinkle:
quote:A careful reading of eugenic literature reveals that it may inculcate less respect for human life. In this way it runs counter to democracy, which stresses the worth and rights of the individual. The Bible teaches that life comes from God and that it is wrong to take that which one can not give. Unfortunately there are other programs also which destroy the idea of the sacredness of life. We refer to murder on the screen, war, and the teaching that man originated from, and still is, an animal.
We mention these unfortunate results [i.e. Nazism and “misapplied” sterilization] as dangers only; not as objections to attempting to improve our race by application of known genetics principles.
Incidentally, Tinkle was one of the founders of Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research. He was secretary of the organization at the time he wrote the book in which the above quote is found.
posted
Of course, evolution doesn't include the belief that all species are in evolutionary competition, so he's standing on fantasies anyways. (The statement wouldn't be true even if that were so, too, because evolutionary theory isn't normative, but descriptive).
And even if it were normative (stupid as that idea is), there's good practical reason to believe that things furthering the survival of humans as a whole further the survival of genes that I share with other people.
Species are but a useful abstraction, not some inherent part of reality. There is no more competition between 'races' of humanity than there is competition between the gene I have for five fingers and the gene I have for a big nose.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The only way Ron for your assertions to be true is if the claim that c was slowing down thus making 1 billion years 10,000 years but that however has been proven false.
IP: Logged |
posted
Or that in the first few moments of the existence of the universe, the speed of light was very much greater. Same difference, though.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I'm wrong, but here's my take on Ron versus me:
Our early lives are alike in that
--We were both raised in Young Earth Creationist churches. I know I was...you were too, right, Ron?
Our early lives are not alike in that
--Ron's church is/was a very large one, having over a million members. (You're SDA, right, Ron? I've googled your name and found it associated with the SDA church.) My church was tiny, with less than 150 members.
I think, all other things being equal, that it's a much smaller emotional trauma to face giving up on a very large denomination's beliefs, than a very small one's beliefs.
I am assuming here that the SDA church is Young-Earth-Creationist.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Samprimary whined, "I guess Ron is busy with other people or is otherwise just not going to open any dialogue with my posts."
Hi ron! I'm not actually whining, but I am glad we have already progressed to the point where you are asserting this for me.
quote:No one can honestly deny that the belief that all species are in evolutionary competition must lead to the conclusion that the various races of man should be in competition too--and may the "fittest" survive!
My response is going to come in two parts.
PART THE FIRST
Yes I can, and I will!
Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.
When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Evolutionary theory helps eliminate typological thinking, and with it the prior basis for racism.
Since evolutionary theory simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers, you are asserting an inherent immorality to pointing out an observation. Again, evolutionary theory can only be immoral if attempting to accurately describe what we can observe in nature is immoral.
I'm sure that if evolutionary theory actually made racism easier, that would make a lot of things completely confusing. Like how racism dropped off with the advent of evolutionary teaching, as opposed to strengthening during that time period. Or why evolution was forbidden to be taught in South Africa during apartheid.
And, lest we forget, none of this is even remotely a challenge to the descriptive nature of evolution. You aren't even attacking the descriptive science, you're still trying to discredit it by saying that it is the foundation of an immoral worldview!
But I suppose the moral position is more .. ah, comfortable for you. Your scientific counterarguments have been more easily rebuked and are pretty clearly in the wrong.
PART THE SECOND:
Tell me what you know about the principle of "Survival of the fittest" and how you think it pertains to evolutionary theory.
quote:It is not reducto absurdum to draw a valid application from a general principle.
Thankfully for me, it is not a valid or useful application! Otherwise it would be actually kind of hard to counter.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The basic idea that a scientific theory could make any sort of normative claims about morality is just baffling to me. Is Ron saying that, because modern astronomy asserts that major asteroid impacts occur, on average, once every ten million years, and there hasn't been a major impact in the past eleven million years, that we are morally obligated to push the next 10 km asteroid we see into a collision with the Earth?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many people who are opposed to evolutionary theory are opposed to it on fundamentally moral grounds. To them, the field of evolutionary sciences are the product of a morally bankrupt, anti-Christian, secular materialism. Some even believe that 'Darwinism' is either the product of a satanic deception or a concerted effort to hurt Christianity.
Churches and religious groups most opposed to evolution teach that yes, Darwinism is immoral, and it is essentially a philosophy that makes normative claims about morality. They even attach an unscientific, pejorative label to it to make it sound more philosophy-ish: Darwinism!
The supposedly scientific counterclaims are a logical progression: they follow from the axiom that since evolutionary theory contradicts their teachings about gospel, it must be untrue. Where science and their teachings on religion come into conflict, science must be incorrect.
If one believes this, the most common way to explain the idea that evolutionary theory has become so universally accepted in science is to assume that there is a massive secular deception at work.
But at the core, the moral objections drive the effort to create scientific counterclaim. These scientific counterclaims are reliably bogus -- which is unsurprising, since they stem from a selective, preconcieved bias and a reliable intent to come to a required 'scientific' conclusion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: swbarnes2, I suspect that the trees in the Garden of Eden did not have annual growth rings.
That's nice.
But it doesn't deal with the fact that there are trees with thousands of years of growth rings.
And there are trees with overlapping patterns of good growth years and bad growth years, and those overlapping pattterns show evidence of about 9,000 different summer and winters.
That's a record that you believe God made of 9000 unique years that never happened.
Most people call that a lie. But you don't.
And I see you have no answer as to why your oh-so-reasonable Creationist arguments have failed to convince reasonable Buddhists, Hindus, Daoists...that is, anyone reasonable who doesn't hold to a young earth as a matter of faith.
Don't worry, no one expected one.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting, but amusingly stupid. By the time I read this -- "But Christians don't display a fish in support of creationism (something most educated Christians don't believe in anyway; they know that life evolved from simpler forms, thank you very much). Rather, they're declaring their adherence to a moral code: blessed are the peacemakers; if someone strikes you on the right cheek, offer them your left; forgive and forget." -- and realized that the author didn't know the difference between a religion and a moral code, I had pretty much lost any hope of learning something from the essay.
Don't get me wrong: the author's point is valid. But I can't think of any polite way to offer atheism as a superior alternative that doesn't imply atheistic superiority; the only other options turn atheism into simply a reactive, eternally negatory worldview.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
