> > On Jun 22, 4:31 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On Jun 22, 8:07 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Jun 22, 11:36 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Jun 21, 9:20 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On Jun 21, 2:43 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > On Jun 21, 1:10 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 9:51 am, Klaus Hellnick <khelln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:> On 5/25/12 6:01 AM, Syamsu wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > On 25 mei, 06:56, Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> In article<Ce-dnZ7gHewPOyPSnZ2dnUVZ5qKdn...@giganews.com>,

> > > > > > > > > >> deadrat<a...@b.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> On 5/24/12 11:24 AM, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On May 24, 4:31 pm, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> this is untrue. I'm pretty sure I'm an "evolutionist"- I see evolutionary
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> biology as the best available explanation for the observed diversity of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> life AND I'm an atheist.

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> But I don't believe right and wrong are matters of objective fact. Is it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrong to punch someone?

> > > > > > > Any sensible Christian would say it depends on the circumstances.  But
> > > > > > > knowledgeable, committed Christians would also say that it is a matter
> > > > > > > of objective morality which circumstances make it wrong, and which
> > > > > > > circumstances make it OK.  [Not counting a few freely acknowledged
> > > > > > > gray areas.]

> > > > > > > > > >>>> Right and wrong, morality, is derived from what is identified as
> > > > > > > > > >>>> loving or hateful.

> > > > > > > What is loving or hateful is largely derived from objective right and
> > > > > > > wrong, morally speaking.  Where subjective morality is concerned, the
> > > > > > > roles are reversed.  And it is subjective morality of which Syamsu/
> > > > > > > Nando talks here:

> > > > > > > > > >>>> You identify love and hate as matter of fact, which
> > > > > > > > > >>>> automatically makes your right and wrong a matter of fact too.

> > > > > > > > > >>>> There is a reason why 99 percent of people are religious,

> > > > > > > That's a VERY broad and not very helpful concept of "religious" that
> > > > > > > is being employed here.

> > > > > > > > > >>> Loving people means not pulling made of "statistics" out of your ass.

> > > > > > > > > >>> <snipped: nonsense based on "statistics" pulled out of your ass/>

> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> which previously resulted in the holocaust.

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrong on so many levels. I don't suppose Hitler was particularly keen on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> evolution or atheism.

> > > > > > > I don't know enough about Hitler to render a really informed opinion
> > > > > > > on this one, but Stalin is an easy case: even though he was raised a
> > > > > > > Russian Orthodox and even contemplated becoming a priest in his early
> > > > > > > years, he turned atheist and made life very hard for Christians.

> > > > > > > And I do believe he was keen on evolution.  He even promoted various
> > > > > > > theories of evolution and abiogenesis that were more in harmony with
> > > > > > > Marxism than the prevailing theories of the time.

> > > > > > > [big snip]

> > > > > > > > > >> e) Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. Matter
> > > > > > > > > >> of fact the Church felt he was JUST and "avenging for God" in
> > > > > > > > > >> attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.

> > > > > > > I seriously doubt that any of the mainstream denominations made any
> > > > > > > kind of official statement along these lines.   This was a piece of
> > > > > > > the popular culture of the time, held by an unknown fraction of the
> > > > > > > populace.

> > > > > > > [snip]

> > > > > > > > > >> g) Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society
> > > > > > > > > >> and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and
> > > > > > > > > >> preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic
> > > > > > > > > >> teachings in public education.

> > > > > > > I'd like to see evidence for this statement and also a source (if any)
> > > > > > > for statement (e).

> > > > > > > [snip]

> > > > > > > > > > Earle is just another evolutionist lying about the holocaust.

> > > > > > > > > It is odd how you constantly accuse others of lying, yet can NEVER give
> > > > > > > > > specific examples.

> > > > > > > > [snip]

> > > > > > > > Nando/Syamsu has, extraordinarily, rejected facts as having much to do
> > > > > > > > with determining truth. We always suspected this about creationists;

> > > > > > > You did?  I expected you to be a bit more free of derogatory
> > > > > > > stereotypes than this, Mitchell.  And who else is included in "We"?

> > > > > > See below.

> > > > > > > > Nando admits it.

> > > > > > > > Mitchell Coffey

> > > > > > > Anyone who thinks Nando is a typical creationist has a few screws
> > > > > > > loose.

> > > > > > It was a joke, Peter. Since I can't blame people for not getting my
> > > > > > humor, I'll note that, no: comments applicable to Nando are not
> > > > > > applicable to anyone one else. I apologize to any creationist who
> > > > > > thought I was actually sufficiently dumb to think that Nandos beliefs
> > > > > > may be generalized to creationists, or to any other carbon-based life
> > > > > > form. Nando is unique, and for all I know, runs on silicon-based
> > > > > > chemistry (which would help explain his core belief that rocks have
> > > > > > free will).

> > > > > > Mitchell Coffey

> > > > > You are lying about me.

> > > > No, you've said you reject facts as having much to do with determining
> > > > truth.

> > > > And my article on free will still stands on

> > > > > creationwiki for a month now.

> > > > So?

> > > > > I accept subjectivity in respect to agency. Who somebody is as the
> > > > > owner of their choices is categorically a subjective issue, and
> > > > > subjectivity works by a way of choosing.

> > > > Nothing here about accepting facts as determining truth.

> > > > > You reject subjectivity, you reject reaching a conclusion about what
> > > > > exists without evidence. You directly kill emotions that way,
> > > > > replacing them with pseudoscientific objective facts about agency.

> > > > If I reject subjectivity, you should be able to produce a quote where
> > > > I reject subjectivity. You won't because you're a compulsive liar. By
> > > > the way, in this last paragraph you *are* rejecting facts as having
> > > > much to do with determining truth, thus showing I wasn't lying about
> > > > you, as you claimed. More compulsive lying on your part.

> > > > By the way, how do you build a bridge just using your emotions to
> > > > reach a conclusion?

> > > > Mitchell Coffey

> > > You right here reject subjectivity. There is no subjectivity except
> > > subjectivity in respect to agency. Subjectivity doesnt work with
> > > facts, because then it is objectivity.

> > I do not reject subjectivity above. The two are not mutually
> > exclusive. In this thread you claim I lied about when I noted that
> > you  rejected facts as having much to do with determining truth. Yet
> > here you are, claiming that finding any use in facts is rejecting any
> > use of subjectivity! So it was you who was lying.

> > Once again, how do you build a bridge just using your emotions to
> > reach conclusions?

> > Mitchell Coffey

> Ridiculous, you accept subjectivity based on facts, which is ofcourse
> objectivity. Subjectivity works by a way of choosing.

> And again, that you cant recognize the posting of Klaus for the
> selfserving tripe that it is, means you have degenerated truth to a
> debatinggame.-