Albert Mohler: The Dawkins Delusion
Jason Spaceman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Dawkins Delusion
"I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins,
the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at
Oxford University and one of the world's leading skeptics concerning
Christianity and belief in God.
Dawkins is well known as an intellectual adversary to all forms of religious
belief--and of Christianity in particular. He is one of the world's most
prolific scientists, writing books for a popular audience and addressing
his strident worldview of evolutionary theory to an expanding audience. Put
simply, Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain" of Darwinian
evolution.
All this is what makes Dawkins' denial of a confrontational approach so
ludicrous. It is simply false at face value. This is a man who has taken
every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=09/26/2006
J. Spaceman
Denis Loubet
"Jason Spaceman" <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:efd3i7$61j$1...@news.datemas.de...
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Albert Mohler
> Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
>
> Tuesday, September 26, 2006
>
> The Dawkins Delusion
>
> "I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins,
> the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at
> Oxford University and one of the world's leading skeptics concerning
> Christianity and belief in God.
Correct.
> Dawkins is well known as an intellectual adversary to all forms of
> religious
> belief--and of Christianity in particular. He is one of the world's most
> prolific scientists, writing books for a popular audience and addressing
> his strident worldview of evolutionary theory to an expanding audience.
> Put
> simply, Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain" of Darwinian
> evolution.
>
> All this is what makes Dawkins' denial of a confrontational approach so
> ludicrous. It is simply false at face value.
No it's not. Dawkins is not very good at confrontation. In his series Root
of All Evil, he demonstrates that he's rotten at confrontation. His
interviews with his adversaries suck. He is not good at confrontation, and
does not thrive on it.
But when he's not being confrontational, when he's just talking or writing
from his armchair, he's in his element. Then it's sheer poetry.
> This is a man who has taken
> every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
> belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
> God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
But this is not confrontation. His opponents are not present. To have a
confrontation, you have to confront someone.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <Mp6dnUxbI_RruYfY...@io.com>
His "interview" with that Haggard lunatic exemplifies that.
Haggard is in his element, being arrogant bossy and confrontational,
whereas Dawkins obviously feels very awkward at having to correct him,
and only does so hesitantly when outright lied to.
VoiceOfReason
I applaud his science, but generally ignore his attitude on religions.
What I don't like about Dawkins is that he's tailor-made propaganda for
the anti-evolution types. "To accept evolution you have to reject
God," is some of the chief propaganda used by Creationists to scare
people away from science, and Dawkins is the perfect example for them
to use.
In that respect, when it comes to trying to get people from
fundamentalist, evangelical,
etc., backgrounds to accept science, especially evolution, people like
Dawkins are part of the problem.
CreateThis
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
But he's part of a bigger solution: helping to open the door to
direct criticism of religion at a time when its "protected" status is
being used as cover for its incursion into rational debate about
public policy.
CT
Steve O
"Jason Spaceman" <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:efd3i7$61j$1...@news.datemas.de...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Albert Mohler
> Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
>
> Tuesday, September 26, 2006
>
> The Dawkins Delusion
>
> "I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins,
> the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at
> Oxford University and one of the world's leading skeptics concerning
> Christianity and belief in God.
>
> Dawkins is well known as an intellectual adversary to all forms of
> religious
> belief--and of Christianity in particular. He is one of the world's most
> prolific scientists, writing books for a popular audience and addressing
> his strident worldview of evolutionary theory to an expanding audience.
> Put
> simply, Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain" of Darwinian
> evolution.
>
> All this is what makes Dawkins' denial of a confrontational approach so
> ludicrous. It is simply false at face value.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
Dawkins stated that he does not thrive on confrontation.
He did not state that he avoids it.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke
and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of
Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King
impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold
hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the
first place." - Richard Dawkins
Larry Moran
[snip]
> What I don't like about Dawkins is that he's tailor-made propaganda for
> the anti-evolution types. "To accept evolution you have to reject
> God," is some of the chief propaganda used by Creationists to scare
> people away from science, and Dawkins is the perfect example for them
> to use.
>
> In that respect, when it comes to trying to get people from fundamentalist,
> evangelical, etc., backgrounds to accept science, especially evolution,
> people like Dawkins are part of the problem.
Dear VoiceOfReason,
You don't realize how silly you sound.
If Dawkins is right then surely you don't want to silence him in order to
appease those who are wrong?
If Dawkins is wrong then the correct course of action is to refute his
arguments and not try to censor him just because you don't like what he
has to say.
So what do you really think? Is Dawkins right or is he wrong?
Larry Moran
Perplexed in Peoria
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message news:1159353120.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I guess it comes down to whether you are a member of the Atheistic Front
for the Defense of Science or the Scientific front for the Defense of
Atheism. Or one of those wierdos in the Front for Scientific Defense of
Atheism.
Of course, splintering works on both sides. Are we fighting the Religious
Front for Defense of Literalism or the Literalist Front for the Defense
of Religion?
Desertphile
One can see by watching him in person and via video that the above
statement, by him, is 100% accurate. Professor Dawkins shows every
indication that "confrontation" is distasteful to him. His politeness
and "proper British breeding" (for lack of a better phrase) is observed
to take over even when he has been sorely abused by his intellectual,
moral, and ethical inferiors. He is far, far too polite even when he
has been victimized, slandered, libeled, and defamed.
Noone Inparticular
Yeah. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking
FSDA. Rotten splitters
Googler
Very laudable. But if everyone followed that advice, he would not be
half so popular.
If we confine ourselves to what he writes about *science*, he really
doesn't say very much that hasn't already been said. Of course, he's a
good communicator and he does write quite effectively - it's his
specialization so that isn't a particularly surprising observation.
But extracting the gold from the dross is really made almost impossibly
difficult - as is generally the case with agitprop.
>
>
> What I don't like about Dawkins is that he's tailor-made propaganda for
> the anti-evolution types. "To accept evolution you have to reject
> God," is some of the chief propaganda used by Creationists to scare
> people away from science, and Dawkins is the perfect example for them
> to use.
There is propaganda all around. After all, Dawkins' speciality is
really communications, and not science. The best propagandist are
also well-skilled communicators, whatever else they might be.
I don't think one can really separate out one from the other here.
>
> In that respect, when it comes to trying to get people from
> fundamentalist, evangelical,
> etc., backgrounds to accept science, especially evolution, people like
> Dawkins are part of the problem.
Of course they are. As are the rest of the anti-religion pack that
hides beind the banner of being pro-science - as if one cannot be
religious and pro-science at the same time.
You've already got them replying to you in this thread, so I don't need
to provide any more examples.
MarkA
Get it straight: We are the People's Front of Judea, and we are fighting
the Popular Judean Front!
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
bob
<notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
>All this is what makes Dawkins' denial of a confrontational approach so
>ludicrous. It is simply false at face value. This is a man who has taken
>every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
>belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
>God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
What's confrontational about that?
MarkA
Since when is expressing your belief "confrontational"?
Make no mistake, however. We are witnessing the birth of the humanist
backlash. After years of rising religious fundamentalism, people are
starting to notice that it is not delivering what it is supposed to. The
secularists, atheists, agnostics, and humanists, normally a pretty shy
group, are waking up and making waves. Over the next several years, you
will see more and more people like Micheal Newdow, Dr. Dawkins, Sam
Harris, Mikey Weinstein, and Philip Paulson making their voices heard.
The revolution is starting.
VoiceOfReason
That's no different than it's always been though. People with religious
beliefs have the same right to debate public policy as anybody else.
VoiceOfReason
Larry Moran wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2006 03:32:00 -0700, VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
(Replacing the introductory sentence that was snipped - Bad form, tsk
tsk.)
> > I applaud his science, but generally ignore his attitude on religions.
> >
> > What I don't like about Dawkins is that he's tailor-made propaganda for
> > the anti-evolution types. "To accept evolution you have to reject
> > God," is some of the chief propaganda used by Creationists to scare
> > people away from science, and Dawkins is the perfect example for them
> > to use.
> >
> > In that respect, when it comes to trying to get people from fundamentalist,
> > evangelical, etc., backgrounds to accept science, especially evolution,
> > people like Dawkins are part of the problem.
>
> Dear VoiceOfReason,
>
> You don't realize how silly you sound.
>
> If Dawkins is right then surely you don't want to silence him in order to
> appease those who are wrong?
>
> If Dawkins is wrong then the correct course of action is to refute his
> arguments and not try to censor him just because you don't like what he
> has to say.
Isn't it a little silly to claim that I'm "censoring" Dawkins?
> So what do you really think? Is Dawkins right or is he wrong?
As far as the science, I've heard from reputable people here in t.o
that his statements are accurate.
As far as the religious stuff, there is no "right or wrong," just
different points of view. My heartburn is that by mixing a science
message with an anti-religion message, he plays right into the hands of
Creationist propagandists. I'm sure some people like his views on
religion, but he's hardly winning any converts.
CreateThis
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote:
>On 27 Sep 2006 03:32:00 -0700, VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> What I don't like about Dawkins is that he's tailor-made propaganda for
>> the anti-evolution types. "To accept evolution you have to reject
>> God," is some of the chief propaganda used by Creationists to scare
>> people away from science, and Dawkins is the perfect example for them
>> to use.
>>
>> In that respect, when it comes to trying to get people from fundamentalist,
>> evangelical, etc., backgrounds to accept science, especially evolution,
>> people like Dawkins are part of the problem.
>
>Dear VoiceOfReason,
>
>You don't realize how silly you sound.
>
>If Dawkins is right then surely you don't want to silence him in order to
>appease those who are wrong?
How about moderating his message to get them to listen? It doesn't
help much to be right if only those who already agree with you will
listen.
CT
CreateThis
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
Well, isn't that why we need people who will challenge the status quo?
CT
CreateThis
Yes, Jesus!
CT
Perplexed in Peoria
"CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote in message news:7vhlh2lm6d84hq96r...@4ax.com...
Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the theistic
secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by trashing nuance;
the humanists by insisting that this is a purely negative movement; and the
non-militant-atheistic secularists by driving away all potential allies.
Steve O
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159373334.0...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Steve O
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159373334.0...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
In person, I find Dawkins to be a little timid.
In his writing, he really does earn the nickname "Darwin's Rotweiller"
Windy
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
Splitter!
-- w.
Michael Gray
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <IsASg.10963$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any religious
delusion?
Desertphile
In the "westernized" world, that "backlash" occured from about the
years 1760 to 1890. The enslavers of humanity fought back with enraged
and well-funded zeal, and that second Renaissance was crushed by the
year 1900. If one reads the popular commentary of the time, one finds a
great many opinions in parts of Europe and much of North America
stating superstition (i.e., reigion) was "on the run."
Desertphile
But that does not work; it has never worked; it never will work. The
people who do not agree with Professor Dawkins have defense mechanisms
that prohibit them from "listening" to him, and even stronger defense
mechanisms that prevent them from agreeing with Dawkins.
David Canzi -- non-mailable
Jason Spaceman <re...@usenet.com> wrote:
>From the article:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Albert Mohler
>Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
>
>Tuesday, September 26, 2006
[snip]
>This is a man who has taken
>every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
>belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
>God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
was born.
--
David Canzi "Do not let superstition inhibit your actions."
-- Jeane Dixon, horoscope for Virgo, May 17, 1990.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message news:0j1mh2p8qt76faqna...@4ax.com...
> Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any religious
> delusion?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo's_David
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bosch/delight/delightc.jpg
http://www.everypoet.com/Archive/poetry/dante/dante_i_01.htm
http://www.mystudios.com/art/italian/botticelli/botticelli-venus-1485.jpg
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095497/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo's_David
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/
http://battellemedia.com/images/sistine%20chapel.jpg
http://dali.urvas.lt/forviewing/pic20.jpg
Desertphile
> > Yes, Jesus!
Heretic! Punish the non-believer!
Martin Luthar King, Jr., did not worry much about appeasing his
would-be allies; nor did Anthony, Truth, Belmont, Lady Lytton,
Lockwood, Paine.... There is much to be said about gathering political
allies in a fight, but it almost always comes at the price of personal
integrity suffering, and evil consessions made (see for example the USA
Constitution, which includes provisions for the support of slavery).
Franklin was wrong when he said "We must hang together [, Gentlemen,]
or assuredly we shall hang separately." Far better to stand alone for
one's convictions and suffer defeat, than to compromise those
convictions to be popular and for the sake of "winning" half the goal.
Capain John Brown was 100% right. Liberation of humanity, which Dawkins
has been engaging in these past eight years or so, must never be done
by half-measures.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1159400357.3...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So what *does* work?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1159401454....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Good, rousing points.
Well, I suppose it all depends on how you define your goals. Will you
settle for a world that atheists can live in, or do you insist upon an
atheistic world? If the latter, is that goal within reach? Does the
'best' ever become the enemy of the 'good'?
VoiceOfReason
"And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it
ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every
city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children,
black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics,
will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro
spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free
at last!""
- Martin Luther King, Jr
Desertphile
> So what *does* work?
Nothing; it cannot be done. One cannot reason with those who have
abandoned the use of reason. One cannot turn the tide of superstition
and fear in society when it is so entrenched: 5,000 years of writen
history has shown that to be a fact of human life. It is impossible,
always, to sway the True Believer with the evidence that show her and
his belief to be false--- their beliefs merely become more entrenched,
and they themselves become more zealious and fanatical.
When Professor Dawkins points out that religion was what caused the
crimes against Americans on September 11, 2001, there is denial by
Islamists, and mental judo by Saulists; the latter refuse to accept the
fact because they CANNOT see the truth, and the latter content
themselves by insisting Christians would never do such a thing.
http://elmerfudd.us/dp/cartoons/faith.jpg
As I wrote in the above cartoon, faith does not move mountains: it
levels buildings.
John Wilkins
> Michael Gray wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
> > <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
> > >Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the
> > >theistic secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by
> > >trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
> > >negative movement; and the
> >
> > Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any religious
> > delusion?
>
> "And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring
> from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we
> will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
> and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
> to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at
> last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
>
> - Martin Luther King, Jr
So where's the freedom for the atheists?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Perplexed in Peoria
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1159405866.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
So, nothing can be done, and Dawkins is just the man to do it. Is that
what you are saying? Or is Dawkins role not that of a man of action,
but rather that of the color commentator in a sports broadcast?
Perplexed in Peoria
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1hmdhm1.1ny9mjlgi8vliN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
> VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Gray wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
> > > <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> ...
> > > >Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the
> > > >theistic secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by
> > > >trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
> > > >negative movement; and the
> > >
> > > Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any religious
> > > delusion?
> >
> > "And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring
> > from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we
> > will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
> > and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
> > to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at
> > last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
> >
> > - Martin Luther King, Jr
>
> So where's the freedom for the atheists?
They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
is against their religion.
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote...
No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
there are always those who are excluded.
Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
society.
Perplexed in Peoria
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US, when
a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the phrase
"God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
Deadrat
news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au:
You don't suppose "God's children" was a Baptist minister's shorthand
for everybody, do you?
> Like all advocates of religion, there are always those who are
> excluded.
What does this mean? "Like all advocates of religion, he excluded some
people from his benisons"?
> Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil
> rights, King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling
> American delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in
> American society.
What you've written is that King was ruled to have no standing, but I'm
guessing you mean that King himself felt that the areligious had no
standing. Might we have some evidence for this assertion?
Deadrat
VoiceOfReason
Nah. "God's children" is a euphamism for all of humankind. He didn't
mention atheists, but he didn't mention buddhists either, or hispanics,
or asians, or women, etc.
> Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
> King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
> delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
> society.
I only see that happening in running for political office (which still
doesn't make it right). Then again, we've elected more atheists for
president than we have women.
VoiceOfReason
IMO, we *always* need people who will challenge the status quo.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:jEGSg.19278$IA....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Well, I'll be damned. I am completely wrong.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/3478.html
And many Google hits explaining to fundamentalists how to tell a 'child of God'
from a 'child of Satan'.
I am amazed at my ignorance.
John Wilkins
I know that's what they *say* it means, yes.
John Wilkins
> "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote..
> >
> > "John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote...
I don't think you are entirely wrong in this case - King no doubt
thought that the phrase covered all people. I am just noting that he
explicitly failed to mention those without religion. It's the mindset,
not the man, I object to.
rev.goetz
King's famous speech did not discriminate against non-theists. He
included "Gentiles," which is everybody that is not a Jew. And I assume
that King believed that all people are God's offspring (Acts 17:28),
regardless if they reject the existence of God. So in that context,
non-theists are children of God.
James
Bobby Bryant
MarkA <to...@nowhere.com> writes:
> Since when is expressing your belief "confrontational"?
When you express it to people who don't want to hear it.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
dmc...@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
> In article <efd3i7$61j$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> Jason Spaceman <re...@usenet.com> wrote:
>>From the article:
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Albert Mohler
>>Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
>>
>>Tuesday, September 26, 2006
>
> [snip]
>
>>This is a man who has taken
>>every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
>>belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
>>God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
>
> It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
> reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
> was born.
There were atheists before Jesus was born.
Bobby Bryant
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> MarkA wrote:
>
>> Make no mistake, however. We are witnessing the birth of the
>> humanist backlash. After years of rising religious fundamentalism,
>> people are starting to notice that it is not delivering what it is
>> supposed to. The secularists, atheists, agnostics, and humanists,
>> normally a pretty shy group, are waking up and making waves. Over
>> the next several years, you will see more and more people like
>> Micheal Newdow, Dr. Dawkins, Sam Harris, Mikey Weinstein, and
>> Philip Paulson making their voices heard. The revolution is
>> starting.
>
> In the "westernized" world, that "backlash" occured from about the
> years 1760 to 1890. The enslavers of humanity fought back with
> enraged and well-funded zeal, and that second Renaissance was
> crushed by the year 1900. If one reads the popular commentary of the
> time, one finds a great many opinions in parts of Europe and much of
> North America stating superstition (i.e., reigion) was "on the run."
Just like Darwinism...
Steve O
It's a good soundbite- I like it.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
Some of the translations are a bit odd because the Greeks were
polytheists yet it gets translated as "God", and also into some
archaic English.
From Cliff Walker's site at http://www.positiveatheism.com
Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not.
Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do?
-- Epicurus, quoted by Robert Green Ingersoll in "Why I Am an
Agnostic"
I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not
approve, and what they approve I do not know.
-- Epicurus, Fragments, no. 187, from The Columbia Dictionary of
Quotations
If the gods listened to the prayers of men, all humankind would
quickly perish since they constantly pray for many evils to befall one
another.
-- Epicurus, quoted from Eugene O'Connor, The Essential Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus, quoted from a personal letter from [name withheld] to
Cliff Walker, (July 9, 2001)
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not
want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but
cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is
in the world?
-- Epicurus (attributed: source unknown)
Grow accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us, since every
good and evil lie in sensation. However, death is the deprivation of
sensation. Therefore, correct understanding that death is nothing to
us makes a mortal life enjoyable, not by adding an endless span of
time but by taking away the longing for immortality. For there is
nothing dreadful in life for the man who has truly comprehended that
there is nothing terrible in not living. Therefore, foolish is the man
who says that he fears death, not because it will cause pain when it
arrives but because anticipation of it is painful. What is no trouble
when it arrives is an idle worry in anticipation. Death, therefore --
the most dreadful of evils -- is nothing to us, since while we exist,
death is not present, and whenever death is present, we do not exist.
It is nothing either to the living or the dead, since it does not
exist for the living, and the dead no longer are.
-- Epicurus (attributed: source unknown)
Kleuskes & Moos
John Wilkins schreef:
Atheists are Gods children, too. Whatever makes you think otherwise?
<snip>
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
How can anyody be the children of a figment of your deluded
imagination?
><snip>
Michael Gray
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <V5ESg.17731$Ij.1...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
You may not have noticed that I specified "overall good".
No wonder you are 'Perplexed' if you are unable to parse such simple
English!
The above in no way atones for the criminal torture and slaughter of
billions of humans under tha aegis of religion.
Not even an iota.
Michael Gray
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ZaGSg.19238$IA....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
But we are forced to fund the singing through our taxes.
(And not vice versa)
And atheists don't have a religion, you fucking ignorant moron.
Michael Gray
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <rTGSg.19283$IA....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
So, you are capable of learning, and thereafter admitting fault.
Colour me stunned.
Michael Gray
Are we Santa's children, or the Easter bunnie's children too?
Fuckwit.
Michael Gray
wrote:
If, indeed, he ever was born.
Christopher A. Lee
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1hmdhm1.1ny9mjlgi8vliN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
>> VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Michael Gray wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
>> > > <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> > > >Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the
>> > > >theistic secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by
>> > > >trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
>> > > >negative movement; and the
>> > >
>> > > Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any religious
>> > > delusion?
>> >
>> > "And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring
>> > from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we
>> > will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
>> > and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
>> > to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at
>> > last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
>> >
>> > - Martin Luther King, Jr
>>
>> So where's the freedom for the atheists?
>
>They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
>is against their religion.
What "their religion", button-pushing liar?
Bobby Bryant
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <eff2hg$ln8$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
>> dmc...@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
>>
>>> It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
>>> reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
>>> was born.
>>
>>There were atheists before Jesus was born.
>
> The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
>
> Some of the translations are a bit odd because the Greeks were
> polytheists yet it gets translated as "God", and also into some
> archaic English.
I'm not sure it's just the translation. There was a tendency to talk
about "God" in the later phases of classical Greek civilization.
I always thought it started with the Neoplatonists, but Epicurus was
far earlier. Maybe John knows the details of the history of the
tendency.
> From Cliff Walker's site at http://www.positiveatheism.com
>
> Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not.
> Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do?
> -- Epicurus, quoted by Robert Green Ingersoll in "Why I Am an
> Agnostic"
>
> I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not
> approve, and what they approve I do not know.
> -- Epicurus, Fragments, no. 187, from The Columbia Dictionary of
> Quotations
>
> If the gods listened to the prayers of men, all humankind would
> quickly perish since they constantly pray for many evils to befall one
> another.
> -- Epicurus, quoted from Eugene O'Connor, The Essential Epicurus
>
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing?
> Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing?
> Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing?
> Then why call him God?
> -- Epicurus, quoted from a personal letter from [name withheld] to
> Cliff Walker, (July 9, 2001)
Wow. I thought that was a post-Medieval sentiment:
"If he is God he is not good; if he is good he is not god."
> Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not
> want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but
> cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
> But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is
> in the world?
> -- Epicurus (attributed: source unknown)
>
> Grow accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us, since every
> good and evil lie in sensation. However, death is the deprivation of
> sensation. Therefore, correct understanding that death is nothing to
> us makes a mortal life enjoyable, not by adding an endless span of
> time but by taking away the longing for immortality. For there is
> nothing dreadful in life for the man who has truly comprehended that
> there is nothing terrible in not living. Therefore, foolish is the man
> who says that he fears death, not because it will cause pain when it
> arrives but because anticipation of it is painful. What is no trouble
> when it arrives is an idle worry in anticipation. Death, therefore --
> the most dreadful of evils -- is nothing to us, since while we exist,
> death is not present, and whenever death is present, we do not exist.
> It is nothing either to the living or the dead, since it does not
> exist for the living, and the dead no longer are.
> -- Epicurus (attributed: source unknown)
>
--
John Wilkins
> In article <42tmh2di9v5hieqcf...@4ax.com>,
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>In article <eff2hg$ln8$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
> >> dmc...@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
> >>
> >>> It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
> >>> reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
> >>> was born.
> >>
> >>There were atheists before Jesus was born.
> >
> > The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
> >
> > Some of the translations are a bit odd because the Greeks were
> > polytheists yet it gets translated as "God", and also into some
> > archaic English.
>
> I'm not sure it's just the translation. There was a tendency to talk
> about "God" in the later phases of classical Greek civilization.
>
> I always thought it started with the Neoplatonists, but Epicurus was
> far earlier. Maybe John knows the details of the history of the
> tendency.
The neo-platonists - at least Plotinus and Porphyry - were believers in
agod.
...
John Wilkins
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <eff2hg$ln8$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
> > dmc...@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
> >> In article <efd3i7$61j$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> >> Jason Spaceman <re...@usenet.com> wrote:
> >>>From the article:
> >>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>Albert Mohler
> >>>Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
> >>>
> >>>Tuesday, September 26, 2006
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>>This is a man who has taken
> >>>every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
> >>>belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
> >>>God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
> >>
> >> It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
> >> reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
> >> was born.
> >
> >There were atheists before Jesus was born.
>
> The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
I thought that, but it turns out that Epicureans thought that the gds
were dispassionate and unconcerned but very real.
But the Carvarkists in India were definitely atheists.
Kleuskes & Moos
Christopher A. Lee schreef:
<snip>
> >Atheists are Gods children, too. Whatever makes you think otherwise?
>
> How can anyody be the children of a figment of your deluded
> imagination?
Tja....
Kleuskes & Moos
Christopher A. Lee schreef:
<snip>
> >Atheists are Gods children, too. Whatever makes you think otherwise?
>
> How can anyody be the children of a figment of your deluded
> imagination?
Tja....
Kleuskes & Moos
Michael Gray schreef:
Santa, a.k.a. St. Nicholas wasn't married and is quite unlikely to have
had children. Since bunnies don't post on USENET, the latter option is
quite unlikely, too.
> Fuckwit.
Bless you.
Kleuskes & Moos
Michael Gray schreef:
> >> So where's the freedom for the atheists?
> >
> >They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
> >is against their religion.
>
> But we are forced to fund the singing through our taxes.
> (And not vice versa)
> And atheists don't have a religion, you fucking ignorant moron.
You could use one, though, judging from all the profanity coming from
you and Christopher A. Lee... I bet quite a few Atheists think you're
giving atheism a bad name. Can you write a single posts without using
the words "fucking" or "moron"?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
The lying theist who can't grasp that what he pretends is profanity,
is no different than his own rudeness.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Way over the fuckwit's head.
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and God are _all_ merely beliefs until
you demonstrate your favourite one is more real than the others.
>> Fuckwit.
>
>Bless you.
Sanctimoniously stupid.
rev.goetz
Are you spinning the "I have a dream" speech into a case of
discrimination?
James
David Canzi -- non-mailable
Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)
>wrote:
> - Refer: <6aKSg.5409$TV3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
>>In article <eff2hg$ln8$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
>> dmc...@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
>>>>Albert Mohler
>>>>Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
>>>>every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
>>>>belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
>>>>God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
>>>
>>> It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
>>> reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
>>> was born.
>>
>>There were atheists before Jesus was born.
>
>If, indeed, he ever was born.
...and if he ever was, where did his Y chromosome come from?
--
David Canzi "Do not let superstition inhibit your actions."
-- Jeane Dixon, horoscope for Virgo, May 17, 1990.
Steve O
>> But we are forced to fund the singing through our taxes.
>> (And not vice versa)
>> And atheists don't have a religion, you fucking ignorant moron.
>
> You could use one, though, judging from all the profanity coming from
> you and Christopher A. Lee... I bet quite a few Atheists think you're
> giving atheism a bad name. Can you write a single posts without using
> the words "fucking" or "moron"?
He might just do that one day - when the fucking morons have stopped posting
here.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke
and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of
Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King
impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold
hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the
first place." - Richard Dawkins
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke
and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of
Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King
impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold
hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the
first place." - Richard Dawkins
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> I know that's what they *say* it means, yes.
What about us children of the Goddess(es)? It is well known that
beautiful women are more powerful than angels, because while angels can
make our hair stand up, women can make our _flesh_ stand up. (OK, that
conceit is over Donne.)
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Bobby Bryant
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) writes:
> The neo-platonists - at least Plotinus and Porphyry - were believers in
> agod.
I thought it was atheists who believed in agod.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>>> But we are forced to fund the singing through our taxes.
>>> (And not vice versa)
>>> And atheists don't have a religion, you fucking ignorant moron.
>>
>> You could use one, though, judging from all the profanity coming from
>> you and Christopher A. Lee... I bet quite a few Atheists think you're
>> giving atheism a bad name. Can you write a single posts without using
>> the words "fucking" or "moron"?
>
>He might just do that one day - when the fucking morons have stopped posting
>here.
Exactly. I only call them that when they have been particularly stupid
- and that includes talking about their god as though it were granted
by what they know is an atheist audience, taking no notice when we
correct them about what atheism is and what it isn't, etc.
If they had any common sense or courtesy they would not do that sort
of thing.
Desertphile
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1159401454....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> > > "CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote in message news:7vhlh2lm6d84hq96r...@4ax.com...
> > > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:37:20 -0400, MarkA <to...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 01:52:09 -0400, Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> From the article:
> > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The Dawkins Delusion
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins,
> > > > >> the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at
> > > > >> Oxford University and one of the world's leading skeptics concerning
> > > > >> Christianity and belief in God.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Dawkins is well known as an intellectual adversary to all forms of
> > > > >> religious belief--and of Christianity in particular. He is one of the
> > > > >> world's most prolific scientists, writing books for a popular audience and
> > > > >> addressing his strident worldview of evolutionary theory to an expanding
> > > > >> audience. Put simply, Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain"
> > > > >> of Darwinian evolution.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> All this is what makes Dawkins' denial of a confrontational approach so
> > > > >> ludicrous. It is simply false at face value. This is a man who has taken
> > > > >> every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
> > > > >> belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
> > > > >> God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Read it at http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=09/26/2006
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >Since when is expressing your belief "confrontational"?
> > > > >
> > > > >Make no mistake, however. We are witnessing the birth of the humanist
> > > > >backlash. After years of rising religious fundamentalism, people are
> > > > >starting to notice that it is not delivering what it is supposed to. The
> > > > >secularists, atheists, agnostics, and humanists, normally a pretty shy
> > > > >group, are waking up and making waves. Over the next several years, you
> > > > >will see more and more people like Micheal Newdow, Dr. Dawkins, Sam
> > > > >Harris, Mikey Weinstein, and Philip Paulson making their voices heard.
> > > > >The revolution is starting.
> >
> > > > Yes, Jesus!
> >
> > > Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the theistic
> > > secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by trashing nuance;
> > > the humanists by insisting that this is a purely negative movement; and the
> >
> > Heretic! Punish the non-believer!
> >
> > Martin Luthar King, Jr., did not worry much about appeasing his
> > would-be allies; nor did Anthony, Truth, Belmont, Lady Lytton,
> > Lockwood, Paine.... There is much to be said about gathering political
> > allies in a fight, but it almost always comes at the price of personal
> > integrity suffering, and evil consessions made (see for example the USA
> > Constitution, which includes provisions for the support of slavery).
> >
> > Franklin was wrong when he said "We must hang together [, Gentlemen,]
> > or assuredly we shall hang separately." Far better to stand alone for
> > one's convictions and suffer defeat, than to compromise those
> > convictions to be popular and for the sake of "winning" half the goal.
> >
> > Capain John Brown was 100% right. Liberation of humanity, which Dawkins
> > has been engaging in these past eight years or so, must never be done
> > by half-measures.
> Good, rousing points.
Earth First!
> Well, I suppose it all depends on how you define your goals. Will you
> settle for a world that atheists can live in, or do you insist upon an
> atheistic world? If the latter, is that goal within reach? Does the
> 'best' ever become the enemy of the 'good'?
Damnedall if I know what Professor Dawkins hopes to achieve. I suspect
he is merely engaging in self-defense. Imagine having a bunch of
Fundamentalist Christians deceive you into giving an interview in your
home, under the pretense of filming a scientific documentary. They did
that to Dawkins, and when he realized he had been duped he was very
irate (and tried to hide that anger, since he was still being
videotaped as he made that discovery). That is just the smallest part
of the abuse Dawkins has suffered at the hands of Fundamentalist
Christians.
And still Dawkins redresses the disease (religion) and not the diseased
(individual religionists) when he castigates such abuses. Robert Green
Ingersoll did the same.
Desertphile
John Wilkins wrote:
> VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Gray wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
> > > <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> ...
> > > >theistic secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by
> > > >trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
> > > >negative movement; and the
> > >
> > > delusion?
> >
> > "And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring
> > from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we
> > will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
> > and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
> > to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at
> > last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
> >
> > - Martin Luther King, Jr
> So where's the freedom for the atheists?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message news:h20nh2565vtt43kdt...@4ax.com...
Billions? Well I won't ask 'where is your evidence?'. That would
truly be fucking moronic.
David Canzi -- non-mailable
Al <aaver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>John Wilkins wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)
>> > wrote:
>> > >In article <eff2hg$ln8$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
>> > > dmc...@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
>> > >> It is a Christian fantasy that the theory of evolution is the
>> > >> reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
>> > >> was born.
>> > >
>> > >There were atheists before Jesus was born.
>> >
>> > The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
>>
>> I thought that, but it turns out that Epicureans thought that the gds
>> were dispassionate and unconcerned but very real.
>>
>> But the Carvarkists in India were definitely atheists.
>
>"general" and "specific" and "broad" and "narrow" not terms that are
>relative? What thoughts would we think if there was no imagined- visual
>formative capacity in our neurological processes? Would words be
>communicable if there were no symmetric, link formations being
>associated with the words? Because there is a dependence on imagined
>form, are the myriad forms and sequential matrices of thought each one
>obtains from their own neuro pathways' interactions effectively
>communicable to another entities generally similar system of thought
>organization to the degree that these formations may be accurately
>transposed from largely "energy interplay" to another system of
>visually and audit-orally sensed "letter and number symbols" method
>thoroughly depicting this fractionalized, dancing interplay?
Uhhh... could you repeat the question?
Desertphile
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1hmdjv2.17vo2gklvgxemN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...> > > "John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote...
> > > > > > <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > > > >Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the
> > > > > > >theistic secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by
> > > > > > >trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
> > > > > > >negative movement; and the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > delusion?
> > > > >
> > > > > from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we
> > > > > will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
> > > > > and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
> > > > > to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at
> > > > > last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
> > > > >
> > > > > - Martin Luther King, Jr
> > > >
> > > > So where's the freedom for the atheists?
> > >
> > > is against their religion.
> >
> > No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
> > there are always those who are excluded.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong - as an advocate and champion of black civil rights,
> > King was a hero. But he's still fallen prey to the ruling American
> > delusion - that anyone without a religion lacks standing in American
> > society.
> Perhaps words mean something different in Oz. But here in the US, when
> a Christian (and particularly a black Baptist minister) uses the phrase
> "God's children", it means every human being on the planet.
My parents were nothing like gods. I am not obliged to accept a
preacher's redeffinition of words.
Desertphile
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:jEGSg.19278$IA....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Well, I'll be damned. I am completely wrong.
> http://www.bartleby.com/81/3478.html
> And many Google hits explaining to fundamentalists how to tell a 'child of God'
> from a 'child of Satan'.
>
> I am amazed at my ignorance.
If the god in question is the fertility war got Yahweh, then I hope I'm
a divine bastard of the latter---- Satan being the lesser evil.
Desertphile
Bobby Bryant wrote:
> In article <eff2hg$ln8$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
> dmc...@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) writes:
> > Jason Spaceman <re...@usenet.com> wrote:
> >>From the article:
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>Albert Mohler
> >>Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
> >>
> >>Tuesday, September 26, 2006
> >
> >
> >>This is a man who has taken
> >>every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
> >>belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
> >>God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
> >
> > reason for atheism. There were atheists before Charles Darwin
> > was born.
> There were atheists before Jesus was born.
If Jesus ever existed, he was born an atheist.
Desertphile
Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> John Wilkins schreef:
> Atheists are Gods children, too. Whatever makes you think otherwise?
Do you have any evidence to support that falsehood? If so, please share
it.
Neil Kelsey
Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> Michael Gray schreef:
>
> > >> So where's the freedom for the atheists?
> > >
> > >They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
> > >is against their religion.
> >
> > But we are forced to fund the singing through our taxes.
> > (And not vice versa)
> > And atheists don't have a religion, you fucking ignorant moron.
>
> You could use one, though, judging from all the profanity coming from
> you and Christopher A. Lee... I bet quite a few Atheists think you're
> giving atheism a bad name.
Not this one. I'd say ":fucking moron" a pretty apt response to your
willfully dishonest button pushing posts.
> Can you write a single posts without using
> the words "fucking" or "moron"?
Can't you stick to the subject?
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain" of Darwinian
> evolution.
That does't make sense to me. Dawkins doesn't believe there is any such
thing as "the devil", much less that he's working for the devil.
Who exactly said (originally) the words "devil's chaplain" in regard to
Dawkins' aspirations?
<http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=09/26/2006>
If Dawkins is so certain that theism is dead,
why would he devote so much of his time and energy to opposing it?
I don't see anywhere he claims it's dead, merely that it's stupid and
causes great harm, and he'd like it to eventually die out, and he hopes
the expenditure of his time and energy will speed its demise.
Mark Isaak
> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:43:14 GMT, bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)
>> wrote:
>> >There were atheists before Jesus was born.
>>
>> The earliest I've found is Epicurus who died 270 BCE.
>
> I thought that, but it turns out that Epicureans thought that the gds
> were dispassionate and unconcerned but very real.
>
> But the Carvarkists in India were definitely atheists.
Off to Wikipedia. . .
Off to Google. . .
Okay, I give. Who were the Carvarkists?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> >What I don't like about Dawkins is that he's tailor-made propaganda for
> >the anti-evolution types. "To accept evolution you have to reject
> >God," is some of the chief propaganda used by Creationists to scare
> >people away from science, and Dawkins is the perfect example for them
> >to use.
> >
> >In that respect, when it comes to trying to get people from
> >fundamentalist, evangelical,
> >etc., backgrounds to accept science, especially evolution, people like
> >Dawkins are part of the problem.
> But he's part of a bigger solution: helping to open the door to
> direct criticism of religion at a time when its "protected" status is
> being used as cover for its incursion into rational debate about
> public policy.
Indeed. Whenever some religious "expert" intrudes into public policy
debate, stating the position of his/her church, as if it were true by
definition, it should be OK to counter "but your religion is false, so
why should we pay any attention to what you say from that premise?"
IMO it's fine that people have the right to personally believe any
stupid thing the choose, but not fine for them to use such stupid
belief as a premise in public debates, nor to issue sermons to other
people, nor to pressure others to believe likewise, nor to commit
crimes just because their religion condones them.
Note that just because somebody has the right to believe something
stupid, doesn't mean it's good for them to hold such stupid beliefs.
When a religious belief interferes with ability to understand science,
that's a bad belief, and it's good to actively oppose such belief.
They still have the right to believe it, but we have the moral
obligation to try to convince them otherwise.
Lucifer
Why of course they can, and so can I, but in your case, why should we
choose to?
FOAD you fucking moron
Perplexed in Peoria
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1159464180.0...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Oh poor Richard! Such abuse. Something similar happened to the bishop
of Oxford, as described here. Third paragraph.
http://www.oxford.anglican.org/bishop/speeches/media-atheism.html
Deadrat
news:1159464522....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No one's asking you to accept a preacher's redefinition of words any more
than you're asking us to accept your respelling of 'redefinition.' You
are obliged, however, to seek a reasonable understanding of what the
preacher means by his words.
Deadrat
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> People with religious beliefs have the same right to debate public
> policy as anybody else.
People who happen to have religious beliefs, who keep those beliefs to
themselves, I agree they should be allowed to debate public policy. We
shouldn't have a religious-nonbelief test as qualification for debating
public policy. We shouldn't grill prospective debaters to try to get
them to confess their beliefs, and if any such beliefs turn up then
they are disallowed to debate.
But they shouldn't be allowed to introduce their personal beliefs
into the public debate as if those beliefs were established facts.
If they break that rule, we should be allowed to contest their beliefs,
and have their remarks disallowed from the debate.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> faith does not move mountains: it levels buildings.
I like that quote. Not just 2001.Sep.11 WTC towers, but more recently
in Lebanon we see much leveling of buildings.
AL
CreateThis wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2006 03:32:00 -0700, "VoiceOfReason"
> <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Jason Spaceman wrote:
> >> From the article:
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Albert Mohler
> >> Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
> >>
> >> Tuesday, September 26, 2006
> >>
> >> The Dawkins Delusion
> >>
> >> "I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins,
> >> the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at
> >> Oxford University and one of the world's leading skeptics concerning
> >> Christianity and belief in God.
> >>
> >> belief--and of Christianity in particular. He is one of the world's most
> >> prolific scientists, writing books for a popular audience and addressing
> >> his strident worldview of evolutionary theory to an expanding audience. Put
> >> simply, Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain" of Darwinian
> >> evolution.
> >>
> >> All this is what makes Dawkins' denial of a confrontational approach so
> >> ludicrous. It is simply false at face value. This is a man who has taken
> >> every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned
> >> belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in
> >> God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >What I don't like about Dawkins is that he's tailor-made propaganda for
> >the anti-evolution types. "To accept evolution you have to reject
> >God," is some of the chief propaganda used by Creationists to scare
> >people away from science, and Dawkins is the perfect example for them
> >to use.
> >
> >In that respect, when it comes to trying to get people from
> >fundamentalist, evangelical,
> >etc., backgrounds to accept science, especially evolution, people like
> >Dawkins are part of the problem.
>
> But he's part of a bigger solution: helping to open the door to
> direct criticism of religion at a time when its "protected" status is
> being used as cover for its incursion into rational debate about
> public policy.
>
Testing, 1, 2, Test, Test............Christians don't fear science,
they fear the moral distruction and subsequent fall of western
civilization as it attempts in the chaotic interim to re construct a
poorly timed deconstruction..... before a new and less friendly
religious order interviens.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem...@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message news:REM-2006...@Yahoo.Com...
> > From: Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> > Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain" of Darwinian
> > evolution.
>
> That does't make sense to me. Dawkins doesn't believe there is any such
> thing as "the devil", much less that he's working for the devil.
> Who exactly said (originally) the words "devil's chaplain" in regard to
> Dawkins' aspirations?
Are you playing dumb here Robert? Dawkins wrote a book entitled "A Devil's
Chaplain", in which he explicitly cast himself in the role. The phrase
itself is Darwin's, I believe. It is (and was) meant to mean a person
who explains why the evidences of the natural world don't point to Design.
Paley, in this metaphor, would be one of God's chaplains.
Robibnikoff
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:1159447762....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Michael Gray schreef:
>
>> >> So where's the freedom for the atheists?
>> >
>> >They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
>> >is against their religion.
>>
>> (And not vice versa)
>> And atheists don't have a religion, you fucking ignorant moron.
>
> You could use one, though, judging from all the profanity coming from
> you and Christopher A. Lee...
Oh boo fucking hoo. Grow up.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Kleuskes & Moos
Christopher A. Lee schreef:
> On 28 Sep 2006 05:36:35 -0700, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Michael Gray schreef:
> >
> >> On 28 Sep 2006 00:17:09 -0700, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl>
> >> wrote:
> >> - Refer: <1159427829.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> >> >
> >> >John Wilkins schreef:
> >> >
> >> >> Perplexed in Peoria <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote...
> >> >> > > VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > Michael Gray wrote:
> >> >> > > > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:40:24 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
> >> >> > > > > <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >> > > ...
> >> >> > > > > >Perhaps, provided that the militant atheists don't first alienate the
> >> >> > > > > >theistic secularists by trashing religious faith; the agnostics, by
> >> >> > > > > >trashing nuance; the humanists by insisting that this is a purely
> >> >> > > > > >negative movement; and the
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > Where is your evidence that any overall good comes of any religious
> >> >> > > > > delusion?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > "And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring
> >> >> > > > from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we
> >> >> > > > will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men
> >> >> > > > and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able
> >> >> > > > to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at
> >> >> > > > last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > - Martin Luther King, Jr
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > So where's the freedom for the atheists?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
> >> >> > is against their religion.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, he explicitly said "God's children". Like all advocates of religion,
> >> >> there are always those who are excluded.
> >> >
> >> >Atheists are Gods children, too. Whatever makes you think otherwise?
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >>
> >> Are we Santa's children, or the Easter bunnie's children too?
> >
> >Santa, a.k.a. St. Nicholas wasn't married and is quite unlikely to have
> >had children. Since bunnies don't post on USENET, the latter option is
> >quite unlikely, too.
>
> Way over the fuckwit's head.
Sorry to hear that. I'll try to make it simpler next time 'round.
> Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and God are _all_ merely beliefs until
> you demonstrate your favourite one is more real than the others.
So you claim. Care to back it up?
> >> Fuckwit.
> >
> >Bless you.
>
> Sanctimoniously stupid.
Yes, you are, aren't you?
Kleuskes & Moos
Christopher A. Lee schreef:
> On 28 Sep 2006 05:49:22 -0700, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Michael Gray schreef:
> >
> >> >> So where's the freedom for the atheists?
> >> >
> >> >They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
> >> >is against their religion.
> >>
> >> But we are forced to fund the singing through our taxes.
> >> (And not vice versa)
> >> And atheists don't have a religion, you fucking ignorant moron.
> >
> >You could use one, though, judging from all the profanity coming from
> >you and Christopher A. Lee... I bet quite a few Atheists think you're
> >giving atheism a bad name. Can you write a single posts without using
> >the words "fucking" or "moron"?
>
> The lying theist who can't grasp that what he pretends is profanity,
> is no different than his own rudeness.
First off, and i don't frequently point this out, i'm not a man.
Second, i'm not the one spewing unprovoked profanities, third, care to
point out how exactly i've been "rude" in a more substantial way than
not agreeing with you and finally can you tell me (and the rest of the
group) where exactly i've been lying?
Especially the last point is rather substantial. If you call me a liar
and can't back it up, that makes you a liar.
AZ Nomad
>Christopher A. Lee schreef:
You disagree? You still believe that Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and every
other mythological figure ever mentioned in the history of mankind are all
real? How do you make room for them?
Do you make a check for elves in your house every night?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Still way over the fuckwit's head.
>> Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and God are _all_ merely beliefs until
>> you demonstrate your favourite one is more real than the others.
>
>So you claim. Care to back it up?
Not a claim. There is no reason whatsoever to assume yours is any
different = in the real world outside your religion.
>> >> Fuckwit.
>> >
>> >Bless you.
>>
>> Sanctimoniously stupid.
>
>Yes, you are, aren't you?
I'm not the one who can't tell where his religion stops and the real
world starts.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>Christopher A. Lee schreef:
>
>> On 28 Sep 2006 05:49:22 -0700, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Michael Gray schreef:
>> >
>> >> >> So where's the freedom for the atheists?
>> >> >
>> >> >They are free too. They just are not required to sing along, since it
>> >> >is against their religion.
>> >>
>> >> But we are forced to fund the singing through our taxes.
>> >> (And not vice versa)
>> >> And atheists don't have a religion, you fucking ignorant moron.
>> >
>> >You could use one, though, judging from all the profanity coming from
>> >you and Christopher A. Lee... I bet quite a few Atheists think you're
>> >giving atheism a bad name. Can you write a single posts without using
>> >the words "fucking" or "moron"?
>>
>> The lying theist who can't grasp that what he pretends is profanity,
>> is no different than his own rudeness.
>
>First off, and i don't frequently point this out, i'm not a man.
>Second, i'm not the one spewing unprovoked profanities, third, care to
>point out how exactly i've been "rude" in a more substantial way than
>not agreeing with you and finally can you tell me (and the rest of the
>group) where exactly i've been lying?
What "unprovoked profanities", liar?
When you said atheism was a religion, moron,
>Especially the last point is rather substantial. If you call me a liar
>and can't back it up, that makes you a liar.
I only called you a liar for being one.
If you don't like it, the soluton is easy.