benedict on reality....
abelard
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7052OC20110106
"Some atheists say science can prove that God does not exist, but
Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting"
because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not manage to
explain the ultimate sense of reality ..."
He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
questions unanswered.
"In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in
its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God,
creator of heaven and earth," he said.
Benedict and his predecessor John Paul have been trying to shed the
Church's image of being anti-science, a label that stuck when it
condemned Galileo for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun,
challenging the words of the Bible.
Galileo was rehabilitated and the Church now also accepts evolution as
a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a
natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.
The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism -- the belief that
God created the world in six days as described in the Bible -- and
says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the
way God created the world.
But it objects to using evolution to back an atheist philosophy that
denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects
to using Genesis as a scientific text."
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bert Hyman
<abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
> questions unanswered.
Maybe because, unlike revealed truth, science involves thinking,
exploration, research and testing, so the answers don't come all at
once.
Science also admits to the possibility of error.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
abelard
so has the church of rome over galileo and darwin...
it is a false construct that religion doesn't change...
an institution doesn't survive thousands of years by being unable
to adapt...only a scientist could believe otherwise!
DVH
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9E6A5AAAF9C...@127.0.0.1...
> In news:o8roi69bj946oj74e...@4ax.com abelard
> <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
>> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
>> questions unanswered.
>
> Maybe because, unlike revealed truth, science involves thinking,
> exploration, research and testing,
So does religion. So does art. So does having an emotion.
Xan Du
> On 11 Jan 2011 14:54:46 GMT, Bert Hyman<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:o8roi69bj946oj74e...@4ax.com abelard
>> <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>
>>> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
>>> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
>>> questions unanswered.
>>
>> Maybe because, unlike revealed truth, science involves thinking,
>> exploration, research and testing, so the answers don't come all at
>> once.
>>
>> Science also admits to the possibility of error.
>
> so has the church of rome over galileo and darwin...
>
> it is a false construct that religion doesn't change...
> an institution doesn't survive thousands of years by being unable
> to adapt...only a scientist could believe otherwise!
>
and ~350 years to come clean about Galileo. Only a religious apologist
would be impressed by that performance.
-Xan
DVH
"Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ighv1t$j6l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 1/11/2011 10:03 AM, abelard wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2011 14:54:46 GMT, Bert Hyman<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:o8roi69bj946oj74e...@4ax.com abelard
>>> <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
>>>> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
>>>> questions unanswered.
>>>
>>> Maybe because, unlike revealed truth, science involves thinking,
>>> exploration, research and testing, so the answers don't come all at
>>> once.
>>>
>>> Science also admits to the possibility of error.
>>
>> so has the church of rome over galileo and darwin...
>>
>> it is a false construct that religion doesn't change...
>> an institution doesn't survive thousands of years by being unable
>> to adapt...only a scientist could believe otherwise!
>>
> Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to recognize evolution,
Homo Sapiens took ~50,000 years to recognise evolution.
150 years later, the Vatican joined in.
What's your point?
abelard
why are you trying/hoping to be 'impressed'?
in the meanwhile, atheistic socialism has killed many tens of millions
and yet there are still morons that vote for socialists...
meanwhile the vatican recognised socialism as a desperate evil
within *very* short order ...
perhaps you should do some hard thinking...
Xan Du
> "Xan Du"<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ighv1t$j6l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 1/11/2011 10:03 AM, abelard wrote:
>>> On 11 Jan 2011 14:54:46 GMT, Bert Hyman<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:o8roi69bj946oj74e...@4ax.com abelard
>>>> <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
>>>>> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
>>>>> questions unanswered.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe because, unlike revealed truth, science involves thinking,
>>>> exploration, research and testing, so the answers don't come all at
>>>> once.
>>>>
>>>> Science also admits to the possibility of error.
>>>
>>> so has the church of rome over galileo and darwin...
>>>
>>> it is a false construct that religion doesn't change...
>>> an institution doesn't survive thousands of years by being unable
>>> to adapt...only a scientist could believe otherwise!
>>>
>> Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to recognize evolution,
>> apologist would be impressed by that performance.
>
>
> 150 years later, the Vatican joined in.
>
> What's your point?
Snippage restored and evasion noted. Let's see if you can parse it this
time.
-Xan
DVH
I parsed it last time. Must I read it again?
Brian E. Clark
abel...@abelard.org says...
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7052OC20110106
> "Some atheists say science can prove that God does not exist, but
> Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting"
> because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not manage to
> explain the ultimate sense of reality ..."
In other words: The RCC asserts the ontological certainty
of a transcendent reality in line with its dogmas; atheism
does not explain this transcendent reality; therefore
atheism is found wanting.
It is to laugh.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Brian E. Clark
d...@vhvhvh.com says...
> >>
> > Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to recognize evolution,
>
> Homo Sapiens took ~50,000 years to recognise evolution.
Spare us this nonsense. The relevant time line is not the
history of humanity but the history of science.
> 150 years later, the Vatican joined in.
That's a terribly long time, especially in consideration of
the weight of the evidences for evolution, and (even more
so) the reasons for the Church's rejection of the science.
Your defense is ridiculous.
Xan Du
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:04:58 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 1/11/2011 10:03 AM, abelard wrote:
>>> On 11 Jan 2011 14:54:46 GMT, Bert Hyman<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:o8roi69bj946oj74e...@4ax.com abelard
>>>> <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
>>>>> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
>>>>> questions unanswered.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe because, unlike revealed truth, science involves thinking,
>>>> exploration, research and testing, so the answers don't come all at
>>>> once.
>>>>
>>>> Science also admits to the possibility of error.
>>>
>>> so has the church of rome over galileo and darwin...
>>>
>>> it is a false construct that religion doesn't change...
>>> an institution doesn't survive thousands of years by being unable
>>> to adapt...only a scientist could believe otherwise!
>>>
>> Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to recognize evolution,
>> and ~350 years to come clean about Galileo. Only a religious apologist
>> would be impressed by that performance.
>
> why are you trying/hoping to be 'impressed'?
Like a lot of people, I'd like to know that there's loving and
benevolent God, and that this often miserable mortal existence has an
eternal purpose. The Vatican does not give me that hope -- none of the
Abrahamic religions do.
> in the meanwhile, atheistic socialism has killed many tens of millions
I see, having no answer to the topic at hand, you change the subject.
But I'm game. Be specific now, names and numbers.
> and yet there are still morons that vote for socialists...
Specifics please.
> meanwhile the vatican recognised socialism as a desperate evil
> within *very* short order ...
You are referring to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum (On the
Condition of Labour) I presume?
> perhaps you should do some hard thinking...
Hey, I'm not the one who trotted out evolution and Galileo as examples
of the Vatican getting it right and then changed the subject when called
on it.
-Xan
Brian E. Clark
d...@vhvhvh.com says...
> > Maybe because, unlike revealed truth, science involves thinking,
> > exploration, research and testing,
>
> So does religion. So does art. So does having an emotion.
Uh huh.
So tell me, how does the Vatican go about testing its
claims regarding Transubstantiation, or the reality of the
Trinity, or the existence of sin, or life after death in
heaven or hell? What are its methods of research, and how
are these methods calibrated and verified?
Do you have one honest bone in your body? Do you think
positing murky associations between dogmatic belief one the
one hand, and art and emotion on the other, make you appear
anything but corrupt?
haiku jones
> energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
> the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
> good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
> only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So then even the head of the Church Universal is
no better than Davey, Maddy, and Andrew at
explaining why, even if we were to be convinced
of the need for a Creator, why we should
believe the one he's shilling for is in fact
that Creator.
haiku
haiku
Brian E. Clark
abel...@abelard.org says...
> >Science also admits to the possibility of error.
>
> so has the church of rome over galileo and darwin...
There is no theory in science, no conclusion -- even if it
has stood strong for hundreds of years -- that cannot be
changed or discarded in light of new evidences.
Which parts of the Nicene Creed are subject to revision?
DVH
"Brian E. Clark" <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.27965dc7f...@news.eternal-september.org...
I haven't seen the full sermon, but it seems to me that he's saying science
is found wanting.
It's not *always* about atheism, you know!
DVH
"Brian E. Clark" <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <vo_Wo.7019$gE1....@newsfe08.ams2>,
> d...@vhvhvh.com says...
>
>> > Maybe because, unlike revealed truth, science involves thinking,
>> > exploration, research and testing,
>>
>> So does religion. So does art. So does having an emotion.
>
> Uh huh.
>
> So tell me, how does the Vatican go about testing its
> claims regarding Transubstantiation, or the reality of the
> Trinity, or the existence of sin, or life after death in
> heaven or hell? What are its methods of research, and how
> are these methods calibrated and verified?
I imagine it's careful not to apply scientific methods to the things you
mention.
Certainly, meditation (for example) is not empiricism.
Dialogue is not empiricism.
Philosophising is not empiricism.
>
> Do you have one honest bone in your body? Do you think
> positing murky associations between dogmatic belief one the
> one hand, and art and emotion on the other, make you appear
> anything but corrupt?
Yes, certainly. But should I be concerned as to how I appear?
abelard
so?
>> in the meanwhile, atheistic socialism has killed many tens of millions
>
>I see, having no answer to the topic at hand, you change the subject.
>But I'm game. Be specific now, names and numbers.
maybe be you mean the sheer numbers killed by the murderous socialist
cult....if so, go study for yourself....
if you mean a start on the vatican recognition of the desperate evil
of the cult...you can start here
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/marxism-encyclicals2.asp
it isn't a 'change of subject'....
it takes humans time to learn and adapt...as another poster has hinted
to you...
>> and yet there are still morons that vote for socialists...
>
>Specifics please.
again, go study for yourself
here is another start point for you
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm
>> meanwhile the vatican recognised socialism as a desperate evil
>> within *very* short order ...
>
>You are referring to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum (On the
>Condition of Labour) I presume?
your presumption is incorrect....rerum novarum is almost a side issue.
see the first above link
>> perhaps you should do some hard thinking...
>
>Hey, I'm not the one who trotted out evolution and Galileo as examples
>of the Vatican getting it right and then changed the subject when called
>on it.
your notion of 'the subject' is far too restricted....
so-called scientists making ignorant comments on religion are both
common and long standing...
why do you restrict yourself to foolish comments made by some
religionists?
meanwhile benedict is making very sane pronouncements of
both galileo and evolution
abelard
the creed and meanings attributed to the words have changed
over time...
http://www.abelard.org/councils/councils.htm
it always helps if you first study before sounding off
Xan Du
-Xan
abelard
a major point of religion is to encourage civilised society....
it is not primarily aimed at the ballistic paths....even views on
ballistic paths have developed and are not settled...
why do you expect different from psychology/religion?
here is a fairly modern quote from a jesuit:-
Etienne Gilson [1884 - 1978], Being and Some Philosophers, p. 52
Religion has its own work, which is to educate people who are too dull
to understand philosophy, or too untutored to be amenable to its
teaching. This is why religion is necessary, for what it preaches is
fundamentally the same as what philosophy teaches, and, unless common
men believed what it preaches, they would behave like beasts. But
theologians should preach, not teach, just as philosophers should
teach, not preach. Theologians should not attempt to demonstrate,
because they cannot do it, and philosophers must be careful not to get
belief mixed up with what they prove, because then they can no longer
prove anything. Now, to preach creation is just a handy way to make
people feel that God is their Master, which is true even though, as is
well known by those who truly philosophize, nothing of the sort ever
happened.
like so many ignorant people who pretend to comment on religion...
you don't have the faintest idea of your subject...
abelard
atheism is a zero....a nothing....
nothing is nothing....
why are you attributing qualities to nothing??
you should also examine the difference between 'describes' and
'explains'
the latter is a very dubious term....
alang
Brian E. Clark
abel...@abelard.org says...
> >Hey, I'm not the one who trotted out evolution and Galileo as examples
> >of the Vatican getting it right and then changed the subject when called
> >on it.
>
> your notion of 'the subject' is far too restricted....
Meaning, that unlike your religious peers, Xan Du isn't
fooled by your attempts at misdirection.
abelard
>So then even the head of the Church Universal is
>no better than Davey, Maddy, and Andrew at
>explaining why, even if we were to be convinced
>of the need for a Creator, why we should
>believe the one he's shilling for is in fact
>that Creator.
your comment is far too poorly organised and too confused
to allow a useful response
try again
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
abelard
my impression is that xan du is much better armed than yourself...
better watch him and learn than to seek to hide behind him as a
champion as cover for your weakness
Brian E. Clark
abel...@abelard.org says...
> >Which parts of the Nicene Creed are subject to revision?
>
> the creed and meanings attributed to the words have changed
> over time...
But the Creed itself remains, and I defy you *once again*
to point out the parts which can be removed in light of new
evidences, Abbie darling.
You're a good example of a man who relies on distraction,
but a bad example of man who provides useful information.
You know the point I was making, and like the snake you are
you slithered around it. Care to try again -- you know, by
addressing the point directly, like a decent human being
might do?
abelard
<brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>In article <7p6pi6hhnms1fgnai...@4ax.com>,
>abel...@abelard.org says...
>
>> >Which parts of the Nicene Creed are subject to revision?
>>
>> the creed and meanings attributed to the words have changed
>> over time...
>
>But the Creed itself remains, and I defy you *once again*
>to point out the parts which can be removed in light of new
>evidences, Abbie darling.
you have been answered...to your obvious chagrin...
meanwhile, i don't care enough about the nicene creed
in order to motivate me to examine it in detail to look for
changes that may be sane in the light of new evidences...
it would probably take a book, not some pat response
however, if there is a particular detail you want me to comment
upon....you may give that a try...
>You're a good example of a man who relies on distraction,
>but a bad example of man who provides useful information.
>You know the point I was making, and like the snake you are
>you slithered around it. Care to try again -- you know, by
>addressing the point directly, like a decent human being
>might do?
you are a good example of rank ignorance....but i don't
mind...
even you, with considerable effort, may move to a point where
you could be in a position to learn, rather than to rant...
haiku jones
<brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <7p6pi6hhnms1fgnaiso4kudstjje0t1...@4ax.com>,
> abela...@abelard.org says...
>
> > >Which parts of the Nicene Creed are subject to revision?
>
> > the creed and meanings attributed to the words have changed
> > over time...
>
> But the Creed itself remains, and I defy you *once again*
> to point out the parts which can be removed in light of new
> evidences, Abbie darling.
>
<>
> You're a good example of a man who relies on distraction,
> but a bad example of man who provides useful information.
> You know the point I was making, and like the snake you are
> you slithered around it. Care to try again -- you know, by
> addressing the point directly, like a decent human being
> might do?
He's a pretty disingenuous practitioner
of the Squid Gambit isn't he -- emit a cloud
of ink and hope no one notices you
scurrying away behind it.
haiku
abelard
another would-be interlechewal that seeks to hide
by reassuring his ignorant brothers...
come out in the open your squirming coward!
haiku jones
<>
You rest my case.
And for that, my thanks.
haiku
>
> --
> web site atwww.abelard.org- news comment service, logic, economics
abelard
Xan Du
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:14:33 -0500, Brian E. Clark
> <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article<p16pi61fq6am1j1os...@4ax.com>,
>> abel...@abelard.org says...
>>
>>>> Hey, I'm not the one who trotted out evolution and Galileo as examples
>>>> of the Vatican getting it right and then changed the subject when called
>>>> on it.
>>>
>>> your notion of 'the subject' is far too restricted....
>>
>> Meaning, that unlike your religious peers, Xan Du isn't
>> fooled by your attempts at misdirection.
>
> my impression is that xan du is much better armed than yourself...
I'd accept your compliment if it weren't at Brian's expense.
> better watch him and learn than to seek to hide behind him as a
> champion as cover for your weakness
I'm just one voice of many, as are we all -- theist and non-theist
alike. I'm sure that Brian will acquit himself admirably without any
assistance from anyone. If you prefer my words to his, that's just your
personal taste speaking.
-Xan
abelard
>On 1/11/2011 1:16 PM, abelard wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:14:33 -0500, Brian E. Clark
>> <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article<p16pi61fq6am1j1os...@4ax.com>,
>>> abel...@abelard.org says...
>>>
>>>>> Hey, I'm not the one who trotted out evolution and Galileo as examples
>>>>> of the Vatican getting it right and then changed the subject when called
>>>>> on it.
>>>>
>>>> your notion of 'the subject' is far too restricted....
>>>
>>> Meaning, that unlike your religious peers, Xan Du isn't
>>> fooled by your attempts at misdirection.
>>
>> my impression is that xan du is much better armed than yourself...
>
>I'd accept your compliment if it weren't at Brian's expense.
very likely...
1)it isn't a matter of 'compliment' but of observation....
2)as for 'brain'....let him learn to row his own boat...
3)you don't need fans....you need good logic...
>> better watch him and learn than to seek to hide behind him as a
>> champion as cover for your weakness
>
>I'm just one voice of many, as are we all -- theist and non-theist
>alike. I'm sure that Brian will acquit himself admirably without any
>assistance from anyone. If you prefer my words to his, that's just your
>personal taste speaking.
no, i prefer a person who can make cogent arguments....
i see little sign that 'brian' can
you are just one voice....
instead of being diverted by my comments to 'brian'...
i suggest you get to using that one voice
Xan Du
So ... I'm not disposed to be impressed when one of them sees the
writing on the wall and acknowledges error centuries after the facts
have been established. I would expect that an organization which claims
to be the only legitimate representative of the creator of the universe
would tend to lead the way in discovering and teaching the true nature
of the earth and the cosmos. Instead what I see are initial cries of
blasphemy followed by centuries of active resistance, and finally
apologies and recognition.
>>> in the meanwhile, atheistic socialism has killed many tens of millions
>>
>> I see, having no answer to the topic at hand, you change the subject.
>> But I'm game. Be specific now, names and numbers.
>
> maybe be you mean the sheer numbers killed by the murderous socialist
> cult....if so, go study for yourself....
No no no, your claim, your burden of proof.
> if you mean a start on the vatican recognition of the desperate evil
> of the cult...you can start here
> http://www.abelard.org/briefings/marxism-encyclicals2.asp
Ok:
<quote>
Pope Pius IX, 16 June, 1846 – 7 February, 1878
This was the Pope who, in 1870, declared the Pope (himself!) to be
infallible.
8 December 1849: On the Church in the pontifical states /nostis et
nobiscum Pope Pius IX
Written the year following the publication of the Communist Manifesto
18. As regards this teaching and these theories, it is now generally
known that the special goal of their proponents is to introduce to the
people the pernicious fictions of Socialism and Communism by misapplying
the terms "liberty" and "equality." The final goal shared by these
teachings, whether of Communism or Socialism, even if approached
differently, is to excite by continuous disturbances workers and others,
especially those of the lower class, whom they have deceived by their
lies and deluded by the promise of a happier condition. They are
preparing them for plundering, stealing, and usurping first the Church's
and then everyone's property. After this they will profane all law,
human and divine, to destroy divine worship and to subvert the entire
ordering of civil societies.
6. You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is
to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to
draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism,
by confusing them with perverted teachings. But these enemies realize
that they cannot hope for any agreement with the Catholic Church, which
allows neither tampering with truths proposed by faith, nor adding any
new human fictions to them. This is why they try to draw the Italian
people over to Protestantism, which in their deceit they repeatedly
declare to be only another form of the same true religion of Christ,
thereby just as pleasing to God. Meanwhile they know full well that the
chief principle of the Protestant tenets, i.e., that the holy scriptures
are to be understood by the personal judgment of the individual, will
greatly assist their impious cause. They are confident that they can
first misuse the holy scriptures by wrong interpretation to spread their
errors and claim God's authority while doing it. Then they can cause men
to call into doubt the common principles of justice and honor.
</quote>
Is this a sufficient place to start?
> it isn't a 'change of subject'....
>
> it takes humans time to learn and adapt...as another poster has hinted
> to you...
>
>>> and yet there are still morons that vote for socialists...
>>
>> Specifics please.
>
> again, go study for yourself
> here is another start point for you
> http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm
Howabouts you paste the relevant text along with the cite?
>>> meanwhile the vatican recognised socialism as a desperate evil
>>> within *very* short order ...
>>
>> You are referring to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum (On the
>> Condition of Labour) I presume?
>
> your presumption is incorrect....rerum novarum is almost a side issue.
See then my repeated calls for references and specifics. Observance of
this etiquette goes a long way toward eliminating presumptions and
misunderstandings.
> see the first above link
It quotes Leo XIII as well, at least I was in the ballpark, neh?
>>> perhaps you should do some hard thinking...
>>
>> Hey, I'm not the one who trotted out evolution and Galileo as examples
>> of the Vatican getting it right and then changed the subject when called
>> on it.
>
> your notion of 'the subject' is far too restricted....
thphphthpt ... you raised a point, I countered, you changed the subject
to dodge the counter. I'm more than happy to discuss wide-ranging
topics, but I'm not happy about people who a) change the subject to
avoid a specific argument and b) tell me what my notions are when they
have little to no basis for knowing them.
> so-called scientists making ignorant comments on religion are both
> common and long standing...
Surely a possibility, but all such statements suffer from a high degree
of subjectivity, and are always seen through the lens of personal
belief. Sweeping generalities in this vein are particularly useless.
> why do you restrict yourself to foolish comments made by some
> religionists?
I don't.
> meanwhile benedict is making very sane pronouncements of
> both galileo and evolution
That's fantastic, it's about time. If only more religious leaders would
follow his example it would go a long way toward reducing widespread
ignorance and distrust of perfectly sound science.
Now to borrow a page from your playbook so that you can see how your own
medicine tastes: when is the Pope going to figure out that condom use is
an effective method of preventing the spread of STDs -- particularly the
spread of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa?
-Xan
Xan Du
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:17:01 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2011 1:16 PM, abelard wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:14:33 -0500, Brian E. Clark
>>> <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article<p16pi61fq6am1j1os...@4ax.com>,
>>>> abel...@abelard.org says...
>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, I'm not the one who trotted out evolution and Galileo as examples
>>>>>> of the Vatican getting it right and then changed the subject when called
>>>>>> on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> your notion of 'the subject' is far too restricted....
>>>>
>>>> Meaning, that unlike your religious peers, Xan Du isn't
>>>> fooled by your attempts at misdirection.
>>>
>>> my impression is that xan du is much better armed than yourself...
>>
>> I'd accept your compliment if it weren't at Brian's expense.
>
> very likely...
> 1)it isn't a matter of 'compliment' but of observation....
Or subjective opinion.
> 2)as for 'brain'....let him learn to row his own boat...
As I said, I think he'll be just fine without me.
> 3)you don't need fans....you need good logic...
Don't we all.
>>> better watch him and learn than to seek to hide behind him as a
>>> champion as cover for your weakness
>>
>> I'm just one voice of many, as are we all -- theist and non-theist
>> alike. I'm sure that Brian will acquit himself admirably without any
>> assistance from anyone. If you prefer my words to his, that's just your
>> personal taste speaking.
>
> no, i prefer a person who can make cogent arguments....
> i see little sign that 'brian' can
>
> you are just one voice....
> instead of being diverted by my comments to 'brian'...
> i suggest you get to using that one voice
Already done.
-Xan
abelard
>On 1/11/2011 2:30 PM, abelard wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:17:01 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/11/2011 1:16 PM, abelard wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:14:33 -0500, Brian E. Clark
>>>> <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article<p16pi61fq6am1j1os...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> abel...@abelard.org says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey, I'm not the one who trotted out evolution and Galileo as examples
>>>>>>> of the Vatican getting it right and then changed the subject when called
>>>>>>> on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> your notion of 'the subject' is far too restricted....
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaning, that unlike your religious peers, Xan Du isn't
>>>>> fooled by your attempts at misdirection.
>>>>
>>>> my impression is that xan du is much better armed than yourself...
>>>
>>> I'd accept your compliment if it weren't at Brian's expense.
>>
>> very likely...
>> 1)it isn't a matter of 'compliment' but of observation....
>
>Or subjective opinion.
no, objective evidence
>> 2)as for 'brain'....let him learn to row his own boat...
>
>As I said, I think he'll be just fine without me.
>
>> 3)you don't need fans....you need good logic...
>
>Don't we all.
>
>>>> better watch him and learn than to seek to hide behind him as a
>>>> champion as cover for your weakness
>>>
>>> I'm just one voice of many, as are we all -- theist and non-theist
>>> alike. I'm sure that Brian will acquit himself admirably without any
>>> assistance from anyone. If you prefer my words to his, that's just your
>>> personal taste speaking.
>>
>> no, i prefer a person who can make cogent arguments....
>> i see little sign that 'brian' can
>>
>> you are just one voice....
>> instead of being diverted by my comments to 'brian'...
>> i suggest you get to using that one voice
>
>Already done.
i've noticed...i'll get to it...
but it may be tomorrow
fasgnadh
> On 1/11/2011 10:03 AM, abelard wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2011 14:54:46 GMT, Bert Hyman<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:o8roi69bj946oj74e...@4ax.com abelard
>>> <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
>>>> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
>>>> questions unanswered.
>>>
>>> Maybe because, unlike revealed truth, science involves thinking,
>>> exploration, research and testing, so the answers don't come all at
>>> once.
"Whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the
definition of the term ...
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist
in the sense of denying the existence of a God.
- Charles Darwin, 1879
[20 years AFTER publication of The Origin of Species!!! ]
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/130/125/
“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent
Theist & an evolutionist.”
- Charles Darwin (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)
>>>
>>> Science also admits to the possibility of error.
>>
>> so has the church of rome over galileo and darwin...
>>
>> it is a false construct that religion doesn't change...
>> an institution doesn't survive thousands of years by being unable
>> to adapt...only a scientist could believe otherwise!
>>
> Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to recognize evolution,
> and ~350 years to come clean about Galileo. Only a religious apologist
> would be impressed by that performance.
Lets see, in 70,000 years of human history since we emerged from Africa,
atheism has never produced a single decent democratic state, in fact
it took atheists 1,917 years after the beginning of the common era to
produce the first atheist state, and that, like every other atheist
regime was a bloody, short-lived totalitarian tyranny.
And atheists have NEVER apologised for the 70,000,000 victims
of atheist regimes.
Only an atheist apologist would be impressed by that performance.
“The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us;
and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.” (Autobiography)
“I hardly see how religion & science can be kept as distinct as
[Edward Pusey] desires… But I most wholly agree… that there is no reason
why the disciples of either school should attack each
other with bitterness.”
(Letter to J. Brodie Innes, November 27 1878)
“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist
in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”
(Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)
“I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older)
but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct
description of my state of mind.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)
[In conversation with the atheist Edward Aveling, 1881]
“Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by
trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind?”
(Edward Aveling, The religious views of Charles Darwin, 1883)
> -Xan
---------
The Harmony of Science and Religion"
"Science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion:
a Symposium", 1941
^^^^^
Science being LED, as usual, by the divinely inspired; ;-)
`Abdu'l-Bahá, in 1912, stated that religion without science
is mere superstition and that science without religion is
crude materialism;
"Religion and science are the two wings upon which a man's intelligence
can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress.
It is not possible to fly with one wing alone!
Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would
quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition,
whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone
he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of
materialism."
'Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks 1912
^^^^
(London: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1969), pp. 141-46.
"Bahá'u'lláh has declared that religion must be in
accord with science and reason. If it does not
correspond with scientific principles and the
processes of reason, it is superstition.
For God has endowed us with faculties by which
we may comprehend the realities of things, contemplate
reality itself. If religion is opposed to reason and
science, faith is impossible; and when faith and
confidence in the divine religion are not manifest
in the heart, there can be no spiritual attainment.
- Abdul Baha
The Greatness of God is something we cannot understand even though we
are aware of it
- Rene Descarte 1596-1650 mathematician and philosopher
René Descartes one of the key thinkers of the Scientific Revolution in
the Western World. honoured by having the Cartesian coordinate system
used in plane geometry and algebra named after him. He did important
work on invariants and geometry. His Meditations on First Philosophy
partially concerns theology and he was devoted to reconciling his ideas
with the dogmas of Catholic Faith to which he was loyal.
I see everywhere the inevitable expression of the infinite in the world
- Louis Pasteur 1822-95
As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner
by which the All-Wise God perceives and understands all things.
- Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727
The scientific picture of the real world around me is very
deficient...Science cannot tell us why music delights us, of why and how
an old song can move us to tears.... Science is reticent too when it is
a question of the great Unity... of which we all somehow form a part, to
which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God.
- Erwin Schroedinger 1933 Nobel prize in Physics
"My view of the World" 1918
There can never be any real opposition between religion and science.
Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the
religious elements in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if
all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance
and harmony.
- Max Planck winner of the 1918 Nobel prize in Physics
"Where is Science Going" 1918
"Something unknown is doing we don't know what"
-Sir Arthur Eddington
Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can
soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not
possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the
wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of
superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone
he would make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of
materialism.
- 'Abdu'l - Baha "Paris Talks" 1911
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of
the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as
well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces
worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the
facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost
beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in
the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the
complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use
the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological
status of the word." (3)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it
quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be
some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the
explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something
instead of nothing." (6)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards,
a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the
Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could
never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances
indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the
thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather,
Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without
intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence
of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially
crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or
Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present
state of scientific theory." (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique
event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very
delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to
permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say
'supernatural') plan." (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe
has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty
of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very
tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am
sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by
our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the
divine." (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has
lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad
dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to
conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he
is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
centuries." (14)
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to
take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and
the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the
ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of
God." (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my
career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced
atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be
writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-
Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are
straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand
them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable
logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since
has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The
Physics Of Christianity.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is
described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created
it."(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the
existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and
refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie
evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that
requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one....
Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the
teleological or design argument." (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe,
in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but
our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no
question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe,
however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial
conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981
Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the
marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how.
The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God
in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and
director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the
University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes
in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to
myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little
corner of God's plan." (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to
understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a
superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to
comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in
Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I
can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100
billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed
and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would
contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that
the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out
of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to
that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may
extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be
entirely unique." (25)
"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a
little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the
ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that
someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It
does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the
child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a
mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly
suspects." - Albert Einstein
"The statistical probability that organic structures and the most
precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be
generated by accident, is zero."- Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist)
Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry
I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28
"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a
knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge,
and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off
even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a
chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems
unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived --
you might say a 'put-up job'."- Dr. Paul Davies
(noted author and Professor of Theoretical Physics at Adelaide
University)
Just a few believers who exceeded the intellectual output of this
ignorant atheist fuckwit and his cronies in alt.atheism;
Sir Francis Bacon - established the scientific method of inquiry based
on experimentation and inductive reasoning.
Nicolaus Copernicus Catholic canon who introduced a heliocentric world view.
William Turner the "father of English botany"
John Napier Scottish mathematician known for inventing logarithms,
Napier's bones, and being the popularizer of the use of decimals.
Johannes Kepler His model of the cosmos based on nesting Platonic solids
was explicitly driven by religious ideas; his later and most famous
scientific contribution, the Kepler's laws of planetary motion, was
based on empirical data that he obtained from Tycho Brahe's meticulous
astronomical observations,
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use
and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can obtain by
them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical
matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or
necessary demonstrations.
- Galileo Galilei 1615.
..science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with
the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling,
however, springs from the sphere of Religion... science without religion
is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein "Ideas and Opinions" 1954
The glory and greatness of the Almighty God are marvellously discerned
in all His works and divinely read in the open book of heaven
- Galileo Galilei 1564-1642
Blaise Pascal well-known for Pascal's law (physics), Pascal's theorem
(math), and Pascal's Wager (theology).
Nicolas Steno a pioneer in both anatomy and geology
Robert Boyle Scientist and theologian who argued that the study of
science could improve glorification of God.
John Wallis As a mathematician he wrote Arithmetica Infinitorumis,
introduced the term Continued fraction, worked on cryptography, helped
develop calculus, and is further known for the Wallis product.
Gottfried Leibniz A polymath who worked on determinants, a calculating
machine
Isaac Newton (He is regarded as one of the greatest scientists and
mathematicians in history.
Thomas Bayes Bayes' theorem. Fellow of the Royal Society
Firmin Abauzit A physicist and theologian.
Carolus Linnaeus father of modern taxonomy, contributions to ecology.
Leonhard Euler mathematician and physicist,
Maria Gaetana Agnesi mathematician
Isaac Milner Lucasian Professor of Mathematics
Michael Faraday
Charles Babbage
Gregor Mendel "father of modern genetics"
Asa Gray - Gray's Manual remains a pivotal work in botany.
Louis Pasteur Inventor of the pasteurization method, a french chemist
and microbiologist. He also solved the mysteries of rabies, anthrax,
chicken cholera, and silkworm diseases, and contributed to the
development of the first vaccines.
Lord Kelvin Thermodynamics. winner of the Copley Medal and the Royal Medal,
Pierre Duhem Thermodynamic potentials
Dmitri Egorov mathematician - differential geometry
John Ambrose Flemingthe Right-hand rule and work on vacuum tubes,
Fleming valve. the Hughes Medal.
Max Planck founder of Quantum mechanics (1918 Nobel Prize in Physics
Edward Arthur Milne astrophysicist and mathematician proposed the Milne
model and had a Moon crater named for him. Gold Medal of the Royal
Astronomical Society,
Arthur Compton Nobel Prize in Physics.
Georges Lemaître proposed the Big Bang theory. Roman Catholic priest
Sir Robert Boyd pioneer in British space science
von Weizsäcker nuclear physicist Bethe-Weizsäcker formula.
Charles Hard Townes 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics 1966 wrote The
Convergence of Science and Religion.
Freeman Dyson the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, and the Lewis
Thomas Prize.
John T. Houghtonco-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change gold medal from the Royal Astronomical Society.
Micha? Heller mathematical physicist relativistic physics and
Noncommutative geometry.
Eric PriestSolar Magnetohydrodynamics , won the George Ellery Hale Prize
Francis Collins director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute.
John D. Barrow English cosmologist implications of the Anthropic principle.
Denis Alexander Director of the Faraday Institute and author of
Rebuilding the Matrix - Science and Faith in the 21st Century.
Christopher IshamTheoretical physicist who developed HPO formalism.
Martin NowakEvolutionary biologist and mathematician best known for
evolutionary dynamics.
And that's just a partial list of Western scientists who were believers.
fasgnadh
> In article<fh%Wo.9451$MD5....@newsfe23.ams2>,
> d...@vhvhvh.com says...
>
>>>>
>>> Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to recognize evolution,
>>
>
Truth, not nonsense.
Name any atheists who formulated or developed a theory
of evolution in the 70,000 years of man's evolution,
prior to Darwin, who remianed a churchgoer till his death.
> The relevant time line is not the
> history of humanity but the history of science.
The history of Science, from Ibn Sina to Newton,
from Copernicus to Le Maitre is the work of theists! B^D
- Louis Pasteur 1822-95
- Galileo Galilei 1615.
- Galileo Galilei 1564-1642
Maria Gaetana Agnesi mathematician
Charles Babbage
Pierre Duhem Thermodynamic potentials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists
>> 150 years later, the Vatican joined in.
Darwin NEVER accepted Atheism;
"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist
in the sense of denying the existence of a God."
- Charles Darwin, 1879
[20 years AFTER publication of The Origin of Species!!! ]
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/130/125/
> That's a terribly long time,
Yes, it doesn't get any longer than NEVER! B^D
Humanity has waited 70,000 for atheism to produce a SINGLE
decent democracy, let alone a great and enduring civilisation.
Unfortunately they have produced only a handful of short-lived
totalitarian tyrannies killing over 70,000,000 people, far more than
ANY religion.
They have no basis to criticise a great and enduring centerpiece of
human civilisation for tardiness! B^D
> especially in consideration of
> the weight of the evidences for evolution,
“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent
Theist & an evolutionist.”
- Charles Darwin (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)
[In conversation with the atheist Edward Aveling, 1881]
“Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by
trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind?”
- (Edward Aveling, The religious views of Charles Darwin, 1883)
> and (even more
> so) the reasons for the Church's rejection of the science.
Atheists remained ignorant for 69,532 years until the
mathematician, astronomer, physician, quadrilingual polyglot, classical
scholar, translator, artist, jurist, governor, military leader,
diplomat, economist and..
CATHOLIC CLERIC
..Nicolaus Copernicus formulated a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology,
which displaced the Earth from the center of the universe.
Atheists remained ignorant for 69,916 years until the professor of
physics, astronomer,
Roman Catholic priest and Prelate
Monsignor Georges Lemaître formulated the Big Bang theory of
the origin of the universe.
That's a terribly long time! B^D
I am not a catholic, but the church has, warts and all,
survived and sustained a global civilisation for over 2,000
years.. it seems churlish for it's critics, especially
atheists who have no positive accomplishments in building
a decent democracy, let alone an enduring civilisation,
to berate it for deliberating slowly and carefully. ;-)
> Your defense is ridiculous.
Atheist jealousy is a curse.
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
---------
The Harmony of Science and Religion"
"Science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion:
a Symposium", 1941
^^^^^
Science being LED, as usual, by the divinely inspired; ;-)
`Abdu'l-Bahá, in 1912, stated that religion without science
is mere superstition and that science without religion is
crude materialism;
"Religion and science are the two wings upon which a man's intelligence
can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It s
fasgnadh
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:04:58 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2011 10:03 AM, abelard wrote:
>>> On 11 Jan 2011 14:54:46 GMT, Bert Hyman<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:o8roi69bj946oj74e...@4ax.com abelard
>>>> <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
>>>>> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
>>>>> questions unanswered.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe because, unlike revealed truth, science involves thinking,
>>>> exploration, research and testing, so the answers don't come all at
>>>> once.
>>>>
>>>
>>> so has the church of rome over galileo and darwin...
>>>
>>> it is a false construct that religion doesn't change...
>>> an institution doesn't survive thousands of years by being unable
>>> to adapt...only a scientist could believe otherwise!
>>>
>> would be impressed by that performance.
>
>
In 70,000 years since Homo Sapiens emerged from Africa,
atheists have never produced a single decent democratic state,
let alone a great and enduring civilisation.
That's a bloody long time!
It is hilarious to watch them complain about the Church for tardiness,
when AT LEAST they have apologised for the inquisition, pogroms and the
browbeating of Galileo total death toll in the tens of thousands.
The atheists have never expressed a word of regret for killing
over 70,000,000 people in the atheist tyrannies of the 20th century!
> and yet there are still morons that vote for socialists...
> meanwhile the vatican recognised socialism as a desperate evil
> within *very* short order ...
Talk about S-L-O-W L-E-A-R-N-E-R atheists! B^D
Theists have led the way from Ibn Sina to Newton
from Copernicus to Le Maitre!
> perhaps you should do some hard thinking...
You might be waiting a very long time for that to happen. ;-)
"I think that the discovery of electricity and magnetism and the
electromagnetic effects which were finally worked out, the full
equations for everything was worked out by Maxwell in 1873 is
probably the most fundamental transformation, the most remarkable
thing in History, the biggest change in history!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhh32JYkQPk&feature=related
The late Richard Feynman is that rarity, something most
atheists in Usenet clearly are not, an INTELLIGENT atheist,
one who is capable of acknowledging that
BRILLIANT SCIENCE is brilliant science NO MATTER WHO MAKES IT!
And he, an atheist FAR MORE COMPETENT to comment on what is
SIGNIFICANT in science acknowledges that the the outstanding
achievement affecting the modern age, was that made by Maxwell,
a theist, in 1873.
_______
"I think Nature's imagination
is so much greater than man's
She's never gonna let us relax"
- Richard Feynman,
Nobel Prize winning Physicist (deceased)
waxing lyrical about metaphysics, describing the physical
manifestation of the universe in the same transcendent terms
theists have used for centuries to describe God.
God does not let us relax. We are challenged by the universe,
and all through history great minds have responded with
enthusiasm and joy;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk
__________
"Do you think that God can intervene in the universe as he wants
or is God to bound by the laws of science?"
"Your question of whether God is bound by the laws
of science is a bit like the question 'can God make a stone
that is so heavy that he can not lift it'. I don't think it
is very useful to speculate on what God might or might not
be able to do. Rather we should examine what he actually does
with the universe we live in. All our observations suggest
that it operates according to defined laws. These laws may
have been made by God, but it seems he does not intervene in
the Universe to break the laws, at least not once he had set
the universe going." - Prof Stephen Hawking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O9cYTZXekA&feature=related
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
fasgnadh
> On 1/11/2011 11:41 AM, abelard wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:04:58 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2011 10:03 AM, abelard wrote:
>>>> On 11 Jan 2011 14:54:46 GMT, Bert Hyman<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In news:o8roi69bj946oj74e...@4ax.com abelard
>>>>> <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
>>>>>> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
>>>>>> questions unanswered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe because, unlike revealed truth, science involves thinking,
>>>>> exploration, research and testing, so the answers don't come all at
>>>>> once.
>>>>>
>>>>> Science also admits to the possibility of error.
>>>>
>>>> so has the church of rome over galileo and darwin...
>>>>
>>>> it is a false construct that religion doesn't change...
>>>> an institution doesn't survive thousands of years by being unable
>>>> to adapt...only a scientist could believe otherwise!
>>>>
>>> Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to recognize evolution,
>>> and ~350 years to come clean about Galileo. Only a religious apologist
>>> would be impressed by that performance.
>>
>> why are you trying/hoping to be 'impressed'?
>
> benevolent God, and that this often miserable mortal existence has an
> eternal purpose. The Vatican does not give me that hope -- none of the
> Abrahamic religions do.
>
>
Actually you changed the subject first, deleting 95% of the wide ranging
content, the significant parts you couldn't cope with are simply
being re-introduced because you have so little to say on the the single
complaint you raised, and was rebutted. We can't just twiddle our
thumbs waiting for the slow boys to catch up. B^]
> But I'm game. Be specific now, names and numbers.
Oh, you have been presented them many times but always
pull on your blinkers and run from the facts...
The atheist tyrants leading the atheist tyrannies of the
20th century, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot killed over 70,000,000
people, far more than ANY religion, as by the 20th century majority
religious societies had developed the free, open, progressive secular
democratic states which even atheists, agnostics and other non-believers
prefer to live in.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#RCW
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#ww2ussr
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Mao
Here is an indicative sample providing more detail;
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004
#
# "State atheism is the official promotion of atheism
# by a government, typically by active suppression of
# religious freedom and practice."
# - "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR:
# Characteristics and Consequences,
# David Kowalewski,
# Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426-441,
#
#
# "An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia�s Buddhist religion:
# monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
# Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
# other religious sentiments were often killed.
# ...the government emptied the cities through mass evacuations
# and sent people to the countryside. Cambodians were overworked
# and underfed on collective farms, often succumbing to disease or
# starvation as a result. Spouses were separated and family meals
# prohibited in order to steer loyalties toward the state
# instead of the family.
#
# About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent of the population,
# were worked, starved, or beaten to death under Pol Pot�s regime."
# - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579038/pol_pot.html
#
# The Cambodian Genocide:
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millones.jpg
#
# "The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks,
# regarded by the regime as social parasites,
# were defrocked and forced into labor brigades.
# Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were
# destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails.
# Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into
# rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying
# or expressing religious sentiments in other ways
# were often killed.
#
# The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most
# persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of
# Phnom Penh was completely razed.
#
# The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they
# regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed.
# Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed."
# - http://countrystudies.us/cambodia/29.htm
#
# "Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed
# because of their religion."
#
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/44camboyano.jpg
#
#
# "the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
# - Daniel Peris,
# "Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
# Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
#
#
# "State atheism has been mostly implemented in communist
# countries, such as the former Soviet Union,[1] China,
# Communist Albania, Communist Afghanistan, North Korea,
# Communist Mongolia and Poland under communist rule also
# promoted state atheism and suppressed religion.
# - Forced out: the fate of Polish Jewry in Communist Poland.
# Wolak, Arthur J. p 104
#
# In these nations, the governments viewed atheism as an
# intrinsic part of communist ideology.
...
> Specifics please.
...
First, Lenin's Red Terror, Atheism in praxis;
# Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9 000 000 [make link]
* Eckhardt: 500,000 civ. + 300,000 mil. = 800,000
* Readers Companion to Military History, Cowley and Parker, eds.
(1996)
[http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_045400_russiancivil.htm]:
o Combat deaths: 825,000
o Ancillary deaths: 2,000,000
o TOTAL: 2,825,000
* Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998)
o Civil War and Volga Famine (1918-22): 3,000,000 to 5,000,000
* Brzezinski, Z:
o 6 to 8 million people died under Lenin from war, famine etc.
* Mastering Twentieth Century Russian History by Norman Lowe (2002)
o TOTAL: 7,000,000 to 10,000,000
o Red Army
+ Battle: 632,000
+ Disease: 581,000
o Whites: 1,290,000 battle + disease
o White Terror: "tens of thousands"
o Red Terror
+ Executed: 50-200,000
+ Died in prison or killed in revolts: 400,000
o Typhoid + typhus
+ 1919: 890,000
+ 1920: >1M
* Urlanis:
o Military deaths: 800,000
+ Battle deaths, all sides: 300,000
+ Dead of wounds: 50,000
+ Disease: 450,000
o Civilians: 8,000,000
o TOTAL: 8,800,000
* Dyadkin, I.G. (cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993)
o 9 million unnatural deaths from terror, famine and disease,
1918-23
* Richard Pipes, A concise history of the Russian Revolution
(1995): 9 million deaths, 1917-1922
o Famine: 5M
o Combat: 2M
+ Reds: 1M
+ Whites: 127,000
o Epidemics: 2M
o not incl.
+ Emigration: 2M
+ Birth deficit: 14M
* Rummel:
o Civil War (1917-22)
+ War: 1,410,000 (includes 500,000 civilian)
+ Famine: 5,000,000 (50% democidal)
+ Other democide: 784,000
+ Epidemics: 2,300,000
+ Total: 9,494,000
o Lenin's Regime (1917-24)
+ Rummel blames Lenin for a lifetime total of 4,017,000
democides.
* Figes, Orlando (A People's Tragedy: A History of the Russian
Revolution, 1997)
o 10 million deaths from war, terror, famine and disease.
+ Including...
# Famine (1921-22): 5 million
# Killed in fighting, both military and civilian: 1M
# Jews killed in pogroms: 150,000
+ Not including...
# Demographic effects of a hugely reduced
birth-rate: 10M
# Emmigration: 2M
* McEvedy, Colin (Atlas of World Population History, 1978)
o War deaths: 2M
o Other excess deaths: 14M
o Reduced births: 10M
o Emmigration: 2M
* MEDIAN: Of these ten estimates that claim to be complete, the
median is 8.8M-9.0M.
* PARTIALS:
o Small & Singer (battle deaths, 1917-21)
+ Russian Civil War (Dec.1917-Oct.1920)
# Russians: 500,000
# Allied Intervention:
* Japan: 1,500
* UK: 350
* USA: 275
* France: 50
* Finland: 50
+ Russian Nationalities War (Dec.1917-Mar.1921)
# USSR: 50,000
o Bruce Lincoln, Red Victory: a History of the Russian Civil
War 1918-1921
+ Death sentences by the Cheka: ca. 100,000
+ Pogroms: as many as one in 13 Jews k. out of 1.5M in
Ukraine [i.e. ca. 115,000] (citing Heifetz)
o Nevins, citing Heifetz and the Red Cross: 120,000 Jews
killed in 1919 pogroms [http://www.west.net/~jazz/felshtin/redcross.html]
o Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): Cheka responsible for
maybe 250,000+ violent deaths.
o Paul Johnson
+ 50,000 death sentences imposed by the Cheka by 12/20
+ 100,000 Jews killed in 1919
o Green, Barbara (in Rosenbaum, Is the Holocaust Unique?)
+ 4 to 5 million deaths in the famine of 1921-23
o Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace
+ North Russia: 244 USAns d. incl. 144 k.battle
+ Siberia: 160 USAns KIA + 168 other d.
+ [US Total: 304 KIA + 268 other = 572 d.]
+ Czech Legion: 13,000 dead.
# Soviet Union, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20 000 000 [make link]
* There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the
number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone
realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the
human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the
slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's
the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough without
you pulling numbers out of thin air" school. The two schools are
generally associated with the right and left wings of the political
spectrum, and they often accuse each other of being blinded by
prejudice, stubbornly refusing to admit the truth, and maybe even having
a hidden agenda. Also, both sides claim that recent access to former
Soviet archives has proven that their side is right.
* Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school:
o Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
+ Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed
during the 1930s.
+ Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika
neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million
"unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
+ Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
o Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million
killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or
less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
o Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of
which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
+ 1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
+ 1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
+ 1939-45: 18,157,000
+ 1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
+ TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo.
famine
o William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and
Eastern Europe: 50M+
o Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
+ Cited by Wallechinsky:
# Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
# Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.
o MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during
the 1930s.
* And from the Lower Numbers school:
o Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch
Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000
"surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
o Cited in Nove:
+ Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8
million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
+ Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e
gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the
1926 and 1937 censuses.
+ Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989):
642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
+ Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state
prisoners shot, 1931-53.
o Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in
Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.
o Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by
Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at
most 8 million.
o MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.
* As you can see, there's no easy compromise between the two
schools. The Big Numbers are so high that picking the midpoint between
the two schools would still give us a Big Number. It may appear to be a
rather pointless argument -- whether it's fifteen or fifty million, it's
still a huge number of killings -- but keep in mind that the population
of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper estimates
accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his people, an
extremely Polpotian level of savagery. The lower numbers, on the other
hand, leave Stalin with plenty of people still alive to fight off the
German invasion.
* [Letter]
* Although it's too early to be taking sides with absolute
certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20
million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness
without straining credulity:
o In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that
the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50%
higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in
1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great
Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20
million was the likeliest death toll.
o Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine,
executions, etc., citing Medvedev
o Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M
destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and
after WW2.
o Daniel Chirot:
+ "Lowest credible" estimate: 20M
+ "Highest": 40M
+ Citing:
# Conquest: 20M
# Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M
# Medvedev: 40M
o Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir
du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.
+ Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M
+ [Ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism
seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who's worse,
Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).]
o John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for
Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl.
+ Kulaks: 7M
+ Gulag: 12M
+ Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors)
o Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember
Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths.
o Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts
After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M
o Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million.
* AVERAGE: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of
Stalin, the median is 30 million.
* Individual Gulags etc.
o Kolyma
o Kuropaty
o Vorkuta
o Bykivnia
* Famine, 1926-38
o Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 4.2M in Ukraine + 1.7M
in Kazakhstan
o Green, Barbara ("Stalinist Terror and the Question of
Genocide: the Great Famine" in Rosenbaum, Is the Holocaust Unique?)
cites these sources for the number who died in the famine:
+ Nove: 3.1-3.2M in Ukraine, 1933
+ Maksudov: 4.4M in Ukraine, 1927-38
+ Mace: 5-7M in Ukraine
+ Osokin: 3.35M in USSR, 1933
+ Wheatcraft: 4-5M in USSR, 1932-33
+ Conquest:
# Total, USSR, 1926-37: 11M
# 1932-33: 7M
# Ukraine: 5M
######################################################################
# Next, just to show it's a CONSISTENT PATTERN in EVERY ATHEIST REGIME,
#
# Mao's Cultural Devolution and Great Leap Backward!
#
######################################################################
# People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong's regime (1949-1975):
40 000 000
* Agence France Press (25 Sept. 1999) citing at length from
Courtois, Stephane, Le Livre Noir du Communism:
o Rural purges, 1946-49: 2-5M deaths
o Urban purges, 1950-57: 1M
o Great Leap Forward: 20-43M
o Cultural Revolution: 2-7M
o Labor Camps: 20M
o Tibet: 0.6-1.2M
o TOTAL: 44.5 to 72M
* Jasper Becker, Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine (1996)
o Estimates of the death toll from the Great Leap Forward,
1959-61:
+ Judith Banister, China's Changing Population (1984):
30M excess deaths (acc2 Becker: "the most reliable estimate we have")
+ Wang Weizhi, Contemporary Chinese Population (1988):
19.5M deaths
+ Jin Hui (1993): 40M population loss due to "abnormal
deaths and reduced births"
+ Chen Yizi of the System Reform Inst.: 43-46M deaths
* Brzezinski:
o Forcible collectivization: 27 million peasants
o Cultural Revolution: 1-2 million
o TOTAL: 29 million deaths under Mao
* Daniel Chirot:
o Land reform, 1949-56
+ According to Zhou Enlai: 830,000
+ According to Mao Zedong: 2-3M
o Great Leap Forward: 20-40 million deaths.
o Cultural Revolution: 1-20 million
* Jung Chang, Mao: the Unknown Story (2005)
o Suppression of Counterrevolutionaries, 1950-51:
3M by execution, mob or suicide
o Three-Anti Campaign, 1952-53: 200,000-300,000 suicides
o Great Leap Forward, 1958-61: 38M of starvation and overwork
o Cultural Revolution, 1966-76: > 3M died violent deaths
o Laogai camp deaths, 1949-76: 27M
o TOTAL under Mao: 70M
* Dictionary of 20C World History: around a half million
died in Cultural Rev.
* Eckhardt:
o Govt executes landlords (1950-51): 1,000,000
o Cultural Revolution (1967-68): 50,000
* Gilbert:
o 1958-61 Famine: 30 million deaths.
* Kurt Glaser and Stephan Possony, Victims of Politics (1979):
o They estimate the body count under Mao to be 38,000,000
to 67,000,000.
o Cited by G & P:
+ Walker Report (see below): 44.3M to 63.8M deaths.
+ The Government Information Office of Taiwan (18 Sept.
1970): 37M deaths in the PRC.
+ A Radio Moscow report (7 Apr. 1969): 26.4M people had
been exterminated in China.
+ (NOTE: Obviously the Soviets and Taiwanese would, as
enemies, be strongly motivated to exaggerate.)
* Guinness Book of World Records:
o Although nowadays they don't come right out and declare Mao
to be the Top Dog in the Mass Killings category, earlier
editions (such as 1978) did, and they cited sources which
are similar, but not identical, to the Glaser & Possony sources:
+ On 7 Apr. 1969 the Soviet government radio reported
that 26,300,000 people were killed in China, 1949-65.
+ In April 1971 the cabinet of the government of Taiwan
reported 39,940,000 deaths for the years 1949-69.
+ The Walker Report (see below): between 32,2500,000
and 61,700,000.
* Harff and Gurr:
o KMT cadre, rich peasants, landlords (1950-51):
800,000-3,000,000
o Cultural Revolution (1966-75): 400,000-850,000
* John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for
Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen:
27M death toll, incl. 2M in Cultural Revolution
* Paul Johnson doesn't give an overall total, but he gives
estimates for the principle individual mass dyings of the Mao years:
o Land reform, first years of PRC: at least 2 million people
perished.
o Great Leap Forward: "how many millions died ...
is a matter of conjecture."
o Cultural Revolution: 400,000, calling the 3 Feb. 1979
estimate by Agence France Presse, "The most widely respected figure".
* Meisner, Maurice, Mao's China and After (1977, 1999), doesn't
give an overall total either, but he does give estimates for the three
principle mass dyings of the Mao years:
o Terror against the counterrevolutionaries: 2 million people
executed during the first three years of the PRC.
o Great Leap Forward: 15-30 million famine-related deaths.
o Cultural Revolution: 400,000, citing a 1979 estimate by
Agence France Presse.
* R. J. Rummel:
o Estimate:
+ Democide: 34,361,000 (1949-75)
# The principle episodes being...
* All movements (1949-58): 11,813,000
o incl. Land Reform (1949-53): 4,500,000
* Cult. Rev. (1964-75): 1,613,000
* Forced Labor (1949-75): 15,000,000
* Great Leap Forward (1959-63): 5,680,000
democides
+ War: 3,399,000
+ Famine: 34,500,000
# Great Leap Forward: 27M famine deaths
+ TOTAL: 72,260,000
o Cited in Rummel:
+ Li, Cheng-Chung (Republic of China, 1979): 78.86M
direct/indirect deaths.
+ World Anti-Communist League, True Facts of Maoist
Tyranny (1971): 64.5M
+ Glaser & Possony: 38 to 67M (see above)
+ Walker Report, 1971 (see below): 31.75M to 58.5M
casualties of Communism (excluding Korean War).
+ Current Death Toll of International Communism (1979):
39.9M
+ Stephen R. Shalom (1984), Center for Asian Studies,
Deaths in China Due To Communism: 3M to 4M death toll,
excluding famine.
* Walker, Robert L., The Human Cost of Communism in China (1971,
report to the US Senate Committee of the Judiciary)
"Casualties to Communism" (deaths):
o 1st Civil War (1927-36): .25-.5M
o Fighting during Sino-Japanese War (1937-45): 50,000
o 2nd Civil War (1945-49): 1.25M
o Land Reform prior to Liberation: 0.5-1.0M
o Political liquidation campaigns: 15-30M
o Korean War: 0.5-1.234M
o Great Leap Forward: 1-2M
o Struggle with minorities: 0.5-1.0M
o Cultural Revolution: .25-.5M
o Deaths in labor camps: 15-25M
o TOTAL: 34.3M to 63.784M
o TOTAL FOR PRC: 32M to 59.5M
* July 17, 1994, Washington Post (Great Leap Forward 1959-61)
o Shanghai University journal, Society: > 40 million
o Cong Jin: 40 million
o Chen Yizi: 43 million in the famine. 80 million total as a
result of Mao's policies.
* Weekly Standard, 29 Sept. 1997, "The Laogai Archipelago" by D.
Aikman:
o Between 1949 and 1997, 50M prisoners passed through the
labor camps, and 15,000,000 died (citing Harry Wu)
* WHPSI: 1,633,319 political executions and 25,961 deaths from
political violence, 1948-77. TOTAL: 1,659,280
* Analysis: If we line up the 14 sources which claim to be
complete, the median falls in the 45.75 to 52.5 million
range, so you probably can't go wrong picking a final
number from this neighborhood.
Depending on how you want to count some of the incomplete
estimates (such as Becker and Meisner) and whether to count a
source twice (or thrice, as with Walker) if it's referenced by
two different authorities, you can slide the median up and
down the scale by many millions. Keep in mind, however, that
official Chinese records are hidden from scrutiny,
so most of these numbers are pure guesses. It's pointless
to get attached to any one of them, because the real number
could easily be half or twice any number here.
* Perhaps a better way of estimating would be to add up the
individual components. The medians here are:
o Purges, etc. during the first few years: 2M (10 estimates)
o Great Leap Forward: 31-33M (14 estimates)
o Cultural Revolution: 1M (13 estimates)
o Ethnic Minorities, primarily Tibetans: 750-900T
(8 estimates, see below)
o Labor Camps: 20M (5 estimates)
o This produces a total of some 54,750,000 to 56,900,000
deaths. The weak link in this calculation is in the
Labor Camp numbers for which we only have 5 estimates.
* Notice that many early body counts (such as Walker) completely
miss the famine during the Great Leap Forward, which was
largely unknown in the west until around 1980. There are two
contradictory ways to assess those early estimates which
ignore the famine:
1. "If these are the numbers that they came up with without
the famine, imagine how high the true number will be
once you add the famine deaths."
2. "Can we trust any of these numbers? After all, if they
missed such a huge famine, they can't have known very much
about what was going on inside China."
* ... so this line of reasoning will get us nowhere. In fact, the
median of the 7 estimate that predate 1980 is 45.7M, which is
almost the same as the median of the 7 estimates that post-date
1980 -- 58M. (At this scale, a 12M difference counts as "almost
the same".)
Now, remember, these are the CITIZENS of those atheist shitholes being
killed by the Atheist regimes who made their lives such misery and
despair that when the atheist regimes crumbled from their own evil and
incompetence, the people could not wait to shuck off the filthy atheist
shitpigs and their nightmare.. and embrace a path more tolerant of
religion.. since then their nations have prospered.. still suffering
the deep scars of atheist abuse, but once more part of Civilisation and
making progress!!
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
�Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
fasgnadh
No, meaning that atheists had already attempted re-direction in the
most time honoured fashion, by SNIPPING 95% of the discussion,
as you yourself have done. abelard simply restored the broader
context, after demolishing Xan's quibble, a (trivial attempt
at whining about tardiness, priceless hypocrisy coming
from atheists ;-) and chiding him for his narrow mindedness.
It is more common for people to misdirect by removing most
of the points made and haggling over their own narrow
misconceptions than any other method.. so it's worth
looking at the process:
As you can see, the first attempt at misdirection occurred early,
when the vast bulk of the substantive issue was simply excised,
because it could not be argued with;
On 12/01/2011 3:47 AM, Xan Du wrote:
> On 1/11/2011 11:09 AM, DVH wrote:
>> "Xan Du"<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ighv1t$j6l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On 1/11/2011 10:03 AM, abelard wrote:
>>>> On 11 Jan 2011 14:54:46 GMT, Bert Hyman<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In news:o8roi69bj946oj74e...@4ax.com abelard
>>>>> <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
>>>>>> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
>>>>>> questions unanswered.
Note that the Usenet convention of indicating that text has been removed
was not followed, even though most of the argument has simply been
discarded. This is what was said, much broader and involving many more
issues than the first misdirection by Bert;
>>>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7052OC20110106
Snipping the source prevents the casual reader from a) noting the
reliability and authority of the source and b) having the ability
to check the accuracy of the citation.
>>>>>> "Some atheists say science can prove that God does not exist, but
>>>>>> Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting"
>>>>>> because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not
>>>>>> manage to explain the ultimate sense of reality ..."
All mention of atheists has been removed from the discussion,
a significant misdirection by default.
The sins of omission are as egregious as the sins of commission. B^]
>>>>>> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
>>>>>> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
>>>>>> questions unanswered.
this was all that was left, all context, and the examples of significant
CHANGE in the church were ignored;
>>>>>> "In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness
>>>>>> and in its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided
>>>>>> toward God, creator of heaven and earth," he said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Benedict and his predecessor John Paul have been trying to shed
>>>>>> the Church's image of being anti-science, a label that stuck
>>>>>> when it condemned Galileo for teaching that the earth
>>>>>> revolves around the sun, challenging the words of the Bible.
As with Xan's post, and those of atheist critics, there is an UNBALANCED
treatment of the church, even at the moment it is admitting error, and
attempting to redress it and to change it's approach.
The essence of this unbalanced view is that ANYTHING showing the
church in a positive light is ignored and ONLY the negative is
discussed. There is no rational, balanced assessment! 8^o
It is akin to a witch burning, and the church gave those up in
the medieval period.. the atheists were still performing them in
modern memory ON A VAST SCALE in gulags and death camps
and torture chambers !!!! 8^o
eg The Cambodian Genocide:
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millones.jpg
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/44camboyano.jpg
And, unlike the church, they OPENLY ADVOCATE such violence TO THIS DAY:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: A.A. BAAWA - FAQ
# Message-ID: <p8mrb5lvaf0cj5bp1...@4ax.com>
# Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:46:34 -0700
#
# We kill theists and shit down their throats
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA
Not satisfied with murder, the atheist Warlord
advocates more GENOCIDE
# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.islam
# Subject: Re: Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
# Message-ID: <8t6ve5hs41qn3a2rv...@4ax.com>
# Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:58:18 -0800
#
# On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:22:32 +0200, "Katrina"
# <blondes_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#
# >Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
#
# It is the most foul, disgusting filth on Earth.
# The sooner we nuke you fuckers, the better.
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA
>>>>>> Galileo was rehabilitated
Remember, galileo was not executed, merely browbeaten
into submission.. over 70,000,000 victims of atheist
regimes were terrorised, tortured, and killed.
The Soviet show trials, gulags and use of asylums to
hold political dissidents, and the Red Guard 're-education'
forcing 'self-criticism' upon hundreds of thousands of
academics intellectuals and dissidents were INFINITELY
GREATER OPPRESSION not just of free thought but of all
rights and freedoms and of life itself on a massive scale.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIrUHVFkm9A
It is impossible to witness the hypocrisy of those who
refuse to acknowledge the mass murder of over 70,000,000
people by atheist regimes and chide the church for
tardiness in APOLOGISING for it's treatment of one man,
without being astonished at their capacity for self-
delusion;
http://data5.blog.de/media/481/2584481_bdc195fac4_m.jpeg
>>>>>> and the Church now also accepts
>>>>>> evolution as a scientific theory and sees no
>>>>>> reason why God could not have used a
>>>>>> natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.
Naturally this gets snipped, no atheist wants to
admit that the church teaches evolution and all
the rest of a modern science curriculum, while
every atheist regime imposed the forced INDOCTRINATION
of it's dogma, including the brainwashing of children in
schools;
The apex of atheist state education;
http://www.thearchetypalconnection.com/images/RedGuardsLow.JPG
>>>>>> The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism --
>>>>>> the belief that God created the world in six days
>>>>>> as described in the Bible -- and says that the
>>>>>> account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the
>>>>>> way God created the world.
Now, in spite of the church which represents the largest
number of Christians teaching the allegorical nature
of scripture, not to be confused with a SCIENTIFIC TEXT,
the atheists persist in grossly misrepresenting all
Christians, even all theists, as Creationist fundies!!!
And then these atheists have the temerity to whine
that re-instating this breadth of FACTUAL evidence
is 'mis-direction' from their one, feeble whine
about tardiness!?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAA
And this is what the atheists DESPERATELY needed to excise,
because it goes to the heart of atheist misdirection;
>>>>>> But it objects to using evolution to back an atheist
>>>>>> philosophy that denies God's existence or any
>>>>>> divine role in creation. It also objects
>>>>>> to using Genesis as a scientific text."
Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, or
science whatsoever!
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist
in the sense of denying the existence of a God."
- Charles Darwin, 1879
[20 years AFTER publication of The Origin of Species!!! ]
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/130/125/
All around the world, millions of children are taught
science, including evolution, in schools run by Catholics
and other theists ..where are the atheist schools, apart
from the dismal propaganda tools in North Korea, echoing
the traditional dogma and lies of Pravda! pfffffft!
>>>>>> regards
From that point the usual post degradation by ommission,
distortion and feeble whining commenced;
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe because, unlike revealed truth, science involves
>>>>> thinking, exploration, research and testing,
Like that carried out by Schroedinger, Newton, Eddington,
Bacon, Copernicus, Turner, Napier, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal,
Steno, Boyle, Leibniz, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Babbage,
Mendel, Gray, Pasteur, Kelvin, Planck, Compton, Lemaître...
And that is just a partial list of Western scientists who were
believers. It doesn't even begin to touch on the great scientists
of Islam, including the fathers of chemistry, surgery, algebra,
the Hindu invention of Zero.. etc etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists
>>>>> so the answers don't come all at once.
In the atheist regimes, they never came at all! 8^o
>>>>> Science also admits to the possibility of error.
>>>>
>>>> so has the church of rome over galileo and darwin...
>>>>
>>>> it is a false construct that religion doesn't change...
>>>> an institution doesn't survive thousands of years by being unable
>>>> to adapt...only a scientist could believe otherwise!
>>>>
Now even when all of that is snipped and removed from the discussions
scope, and all that is left is this tiny and trivial quibble,
it's so unbalanced as to be a JOKE;
>>> Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to
>>> recognize evolution,
>>> and ~350 years to come clean about Galileo. Only a religious
>>> apologist would be impressed by that performance.
Those who do not make mistakes, do no make anything.
The history of atheist achievement is a handful of the
most appalling, backward, dogmatic, violent oppressive
states in human history, killing over 70,000,000 people
and for which no atheist organisation has ever expressed
a single word of regret...
and those WEAK FUCKING HYPOCRITES want to complain that
a mea culpa, accompanied by GENUINE reform and transformation
was 'too slow' ...in their opinion!??!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA
>> Homo Sapiens took ~50,000 years to recognise evolution.
>>
>> 150 years later, the Vatican joined in.
>>
>> What's your point?
>
> Snippage restored and evasion noted.
by me.. Xan and the atheists are the snippers of note
and their evasions continue because they have no case.
> Let's see if you can parse it this time.
pffft! run along, lightweight. You have no point.
And neither does atheism, as history shows.
> -Xan
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
Xan Du
> On 12/01/2011 3:04 AM, Xan Du wrote:
>> On 1/11/2011 10:03 AM, abelard wrote:
>>> On 11 Jan 2011 14:54:46 GMT, Bert Hyman<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to recognize evolution,
>> and ~350 years to come clean about Galileo. Only a religious apologist
>> would be impressed by that performance.
>
> Lets see, in 70,000 years of human history since we emerged from Africa,
> atheism has never produced a single decent democratic state, in fact
> it took atheists 1,917 years after the beginning of the common era to
> produce the first atheist state, and that, like every other atheist
> regime was a bloody, short-lived totalitarian tyranny.
Yet before most "decent democratic states" were ever founded, the
majority of governments were totalitarian theocracies, motivating the
huddled masses to do their murderous bidding by threat of heresy and
eternal damnation, all of which is fully justified and encouraged by the
sacred text from which they claimed authority.
By the way, in case you haven't heard, there is no atheist bible.
While you're mulling over that shocker, feast your eyes on this:
<quote>
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
[18] In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the
prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous
democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin
predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of
the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always
scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to
the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of
societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend
because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious
or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong
religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal
health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution
usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least
theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the
strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high
levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious
U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic
but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In
other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes
outstandingly so.
</quote>
> And atheists have NEVER apologised for the 70,000,000 victims
> of atheist regimes.
I've got 25,000,000 for Stalin, a man who had been raised by a devoutly
religious mother to be a priest. His purge of religion rightfully
includes elements of Marxist-Leninist doctrines, but you conveniently
ignore the fact that he also purged members of the existing communist
party and intellectuals and scholars who opposed his rise to power.
Even more egregiously, you leave out the fact that when Hitler invaded
in 1941, Stalin embraced the Russian Orthodox church as a method to
revive Russian patriotism in the face of an external enemy. In short,
he did not operate under the banner of atheism, he operated under the
cult of Stalin in the name of Lenin and Marx at first, but then right
back to good old Christianity when it suited him to do so.
Pol Pot was a bit player in this game, he racked up an estimated
3,000,000 bodies at most, some say as few as 1,000,000. Further, his
pattern of oppression was similar to Stalin -- he removed elements that
opposed him because they opposed him. His lieutenants were largely
Buddhist and Christian.
17,000,000 for Hitler who was nominally a Christian. Most of the people
who did the actual killings on his orders were, you guessed it,
Christian. By his own words:
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We
have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and
that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it
out." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
men to fight against them and who, God's truth! In boundless love as a
Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the
Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of
the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight
for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand
years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before
the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the
Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated,
but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there
is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the
distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my
own people." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar;
it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen
altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith
take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."
-Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf
"Hence today 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." -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
> Only an atheist apologist would be impressed by that performance.
There are 25,000,000 left I can't account for here. But my general
argument is that Stalin should apologize for Stalin, Hitler for Hitler,
and Pol Pot for Pol Pot.
For the rest of your so-called point, I would refer you to the study I
posted above which shows that by almost all measures of social wellness,
stable modern democracies fare better as religiosity of the general
population *decreases*, not increases.
And why shouldn't this be the case? The founding documents of the
world's major religions are thousands of years out of date, and none of
them can seem to resolve their serious differences with each other by
producing any compelling evidence that their god is the right one, nor
that he/she/it is today feeding them the best inspiration or truth.
Opportunistic and amoral leaders of all sorts of publicly expressed
(dis)belief have taken advantage of this faith-based ideological
friction to fulfill their own selfish and murderous purposes almost
since the first rock was hurled in anger.
Ta.
-Xan
Mortadello
> On 1/11/2011 1:00 PM, abelard wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:32:28 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/11/2011 11:41 AM, abelard wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:04:58 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/11/2011 10:03 AM, abelard wrote:
>>>>>> On 11 Jan 2011 14:54:46 GMT, Bert Hyman<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In news:o8roi69bj946oj74e...@4ax.com abelard
>>>>>>> <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
>>>>>>>> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
>>>>>>>> questions unanswered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe because, unlike revealed truth, science involves thinking,
>>>>>>> exploration, research and testing, so the answers don't come all at
>>>>>>> once.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Science also admits to the possibility of error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so has the church of rome over galileo and darwin...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is a false construct that religion doesn't change...
>>>>>> an institution doesn't survive thousands of years by being unable
>>>>>> to adapt...only a scientist could believe otherwise!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to recognize evolution,
>>>>> and ~350 years to come clean about Galileo. Only a religious
>>>>> apologist
>>>>> would be impressed by that performance.
>>>>
>
> on the wall and acknowledges error centuries after the facts have been
> established. I would expect that an organization which claims to be the
> only legitimate representative of the creator of the universe would tend
> to lead the way in discovering and teaching the true nature of the earth
> and the cosmos. Instead what I see are initial cries of blasphemy
> followed by centuries of active resistance, and finally apologies and
> recognition.
You should read some history books:
The most of Universities and the best schools were established by the
Catholic Church.
Josef Balluch
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7052OC20110106
> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
> questions unanswered.
And Benny's faith also leaves many questions unanswered:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/56b74379ad4f7ffa
> "In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in
> its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God,
> creator of heaven and earth," he said.
Snorf! Argument from Ignorance.
...
> But it objects to using evolution to back an atheist philosophy ...
Atheism is not a philosophy.
> ... that
> denies God's existence or any divine role in creation.
Fortunately one does not need to use the fact of evolution for this.
Philosophy and logic works so much better here:
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.atheism/msg/92d69151e481a211
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.atheism/msg/859f103b91aadc67
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.atheism/msg/d5ea57e809148e4c
Regards,
Josef
Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they
are not even superficial.
-- Nietzsche
Mortadello
> On 1/11/2011 3:43 PM, fasgnadh wrote:
>> On 12/01/2011 3:04 AM, Xan Du wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2011 10:03 AM, abelard wrote:
>>>> On 11 Jan 2011 14:54:46 GMT, Bert Hyman<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>> Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to recognize evolution,
>>> and ~350 years to come clean about Galileo. Only a religious apologist
>>> would be impressed by that performance.
>>
>> Lets see, in 70,000 years of human history since we emerged from Africa,
>> atheism has never produced a single decent democratic state, in fact
>> it took atheists 1,917 years after the beginning of the common era to
>> produce the first atheist state, and that, like every other atheist
>> regime was a bloody, short-lived totalitarian tyranny.
>
> Yet before most "decent democratic states" were ever founded, the majority
> of governments were totalitarian theocracies, motivating the huddled
> masses to do their murderous bidding by threat of heresy and eternal
> damnation, all of which is fully justified and encouraged by the sacred
> text from which they claimed authority.
>
You sound like a Chinese Embassy propaganda employee...
Are you still worshiping Mao and deny Bejing square masacre ?
fasgnadh
Xan made his last comment of (some small) substance way back at his
first post and has ignored any substanrive points or questions put, since.
Discussions with atheists end, not with a Big Bang,
but a whimper as they slink away, it's chit chat from them
from here on (actually from round 2 on ;-).
--
Richo
On Jan 12, 1:49 am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7052OC20110106
> Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting"
> because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not manage to
> explain the ultimate sense of reality ..."
>
Why does he think that individual scientific theories are intended to
explain the ultimate sense of reality?
Any clues?
How can theories be "mind limiting" - what's the mechanism involved
here?
> He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the
> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
> questions unanswered.
>
Master of the bleeding obvious, isnt he?
> "In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in
> its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God,
> creator of heaven and earth," he said.
>
Or not.
The beauty of the world and its mystery are certainly not leading me
to God - quite the opposite.
> Benedict and his predecessor John Paul have been trying to shed the
> Church's image of being anti-science, a label that stuck when it
> condemned Galileo for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun,
> challenging the words of the Bible.
>
Propaganda is a powerful tool - they may succeed.
> Galileo was rehabilitated and the Church now also accepts evolution as
> a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a
> natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.
>
> The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism -- the belief that
> God created the world in six days as described in the Bible -- and
> says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the
> way God created the world.
>
> But it objects to using evolution to back an atheist philosophy that
> denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects
> to using Genesis as a scientific text."
>
The Catholic church is playing catch up - but my hope is that it is
too late.
I actually would prefer it if they became ever more anachronistic and
irrelevent.
It would hasten its ultimate demise which I would see as a blessing
for humanity.
Mark.
fasgnadh
easy to do when you ignore the facts of history in any balanced way,
and obsess about a single data point. pffft!
>> when one of them sees the writing on the wall and
>> acknowledges error centuries after the facts have been
>> established.
Compared to what, the refusal of any atheist group to admit error,
let alone apologise for, the 70,000,000 deaths caused by the appalling
atheist regimes? It's been a century since the atheist regimes began
their crimes against humanity, after all.
Having spent all of the previous MILLENNIA being the only vector
for the transmission of learning, including science, it is hardly
surprising that religious structures were centuries slow in conceding
their singular authority to emerging intellectual pluralism.
Please take a slightly more informed view toward history than your
completely ill-informed, unbalanced whining.
Where ere the alternate atheist centres of learning to support
Galieo, a christian and product of their system of education, in
his hour of need?
Oh, thats right.. there were none. Atheism was irrelevant to human
civilisation for 69,894 years, and then with the first atheist state,
they were the greatest force for CULTURAL DE-VOLUTION, repression,
intolerance, star-chambers, persecution of intellectuals and dissidents,
mass terror, torture and murder for the next century..
and you are whining endlessly about ONE browbeaten christian who
sensibly bowed to the dogmatic church authorities at the end
of MEDIEVAL times?
For goodness sake.. show at least a modicum of perspective! B^D
>> I would expect that an organization which claims to be the
>> only legitimate representative of the creator of the universe would tend
>> to lead the way in discovering and teaching the true nature of the earth
>> and the cosmos.
And you claim they weren't?
I don't see any evidence in support of your view.. oh, wait.
I see a single case! B^D
An extensive list of the greatest thinkers and men of science in
history, only a partial fraction of those who could be listed,
all Christians, is attached.
Could you please show us your equivalent for the period from the
beginning of recorded history to Galileo's time, of the atheist
scientists of note, so we can compare who "lead the way in
discovering and teaching the true nature of the earth and the cosmos."
B^]
So, by what measure are you comparing the performance of the Catholic
Church at the time of Galileo.. there was no equivalent atheist
civilisation with centres of learning.
After all, those who make NO MISTAKES are likely to be the folks
who MADE NOTHING AT ALL. and that Xan, is the history of ATHEISM! B^]
I think you will be hard put to find any worthwhile system of knowledge
to compare the Church to, from it's beginning to the modern era, apart
from other religions, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism..
Modern science, is after all a relatively recent development,
and it has occured and progressed most rapidly in the evolving
of free open, tolerant, progressive secular democracies, built IN
EVERY CASE by majority religious societies!
What you do is use the limitations of their past to condemn religion
in the present.
But I see no contemporaneous alternative for that past presented by you.
Ergo. How arrogant do you have to be to condemn the BEST that was going
at the time, using today's standards.. which THEY have evolved and
developed. pffffft! Shalllow and unworthy.
You can do better.
>> Instead what I see are initial cries of blasphemy
>> followed by centuries of active resistance, and finally apologies and
>> recognition.
How is that different from ANY aspect of medieval societies
during their transition into modernity?
The chartists were fighting the same battle, AGAINST SECULAR
AUTHORITY when they were shipped in chains to Port Arthur along
with pickpockets and other convicts.. in the 1700's
The critical transforming event was Guttenberg, mass
literacy led to a slow decentralisation of knowledge,
and the emergence of intellectual freedom. That was not
confined to religion, it TORE DOWN the monarchies of Europe, it fostered
revolution, in politics, science, art music..
The church saw it's role, as it always did.. to PRESERVE STABILITY,
and this it did, in some cases mistakenly, by browbeating some
intellectuals into silence.
Reprehensible, but understandable.
But lest see.. it's the 'modern'(sic) era the church
is seperateds from the power of the state.. and yet..
..isn't there some dramatic controversy, where
at least three secular states are in the process
of legally railroading Julian Assange for revealing
embarrassing truths, on dubious charges with others
threatened??
But atheists, in their rabid and unbalanced ranting at religion
strain at gnats and swallow a camel! B^p
> You should read some history books:
And blur the pompous, self-righteous indignation that
ignorance allows him?
> The most of Universities and the best schools were established by the
> Catholic Church.
Oh don't confuse them with facts.
In my state the religious schools, Jewish, Christian and Muslim
outperform the state schools and many of the selective private schools
in student scores for University entrance exams.
>>>>> in the meanwhile, atheistic socialism has killed many tens of millions
Why would anyone want to talk about the death of 70,000,000
or the persecution of Wikileaks as a MODERN witch-hunt, when we
all know the real villains operated four centuries ago to
delay the (official) view, but not the dissemination, of truth.
pfffft!
Josef Balluch
...
> The Catholic church is playing catch up - but my hope is that it is
> too late.
>
> I actually would prefer it if they became ever more anachronistic and
> irrelevent.
> It would hasten its ultimate demise which I would see as a blessing
> for humanity.
Fear not, Mark! Benny intends to restore the RCC to the glory of the Middle
Ages.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/fb5117ef24bccc24
Regards,
Josef
Madness is rare in individuals-but in groups, parties, nations and
ages it rules.
-- Fredrich Nietzsche
Xan Du
I'm well aware that the history of science is replete with people who
professed great faith in a higher power -- 'tis a no-brainer since
*most* people in known history have been theists of one form or another.
I haven't checked the latest stats, but I wouldn't be surprised -- or
annoyed -- to find a majority of working scientists today have some
level of faith in deity.
The only point in the above conversation was to counter a point brought
up by the OP. (S)he seems to be arguing that the Vatican deserves credit
for recognizing that Galileo was right, and that evolution is not a
bunch of atheistic nonsense. Yes, absolutely, they deserve some credit
for that, but it's *still* an issue that it took them decades in the
case of Darwin and centuries in the case of Galileo to do it.
While there are a great many scientists of faith working in the field
today and in history, there are also a large number of powerful
religious organizations attempting to undermine and discredit the
advance of knowledge -- knowledge members of their *own* flock are
trying to bring to light!!! -- in the name of their dusty and out of
date religious texts. I take issue with that, and I take issue with you
for defending it.
By the way, your duplicity is simply amazing, Mr. 70 million. I've
never known you to tally up the dead due to theocratic regimes over the
lifetime of known history. Never, not once, nunca, tidak pernah. So
you can take "balanced" and shove it right up your ass, or else cough up
the number and continue the conversation. Your choice.
-Xan
Kadaitcha Man
runagate, away, ye insane most impenetrable cur. Ye chortled:
> On 1/11/2011 1:00 PM, abelard wrote:
>> maybe be you mean the sheer numbers killed by the murderous socialist
>> cult....if so, go study for yourself....
>
> No no no, your claim, your burden of proof.
He doesn't need to prove it, old mate, because it is true, provided that
one assumes that socialism equates exactly to communism. I've posted the
data, with verifiable references, several times.
What he has to prove is that socialism is communism.
Of course, no reasonable-minded person (that would be you, me and other
non-rednecks) would allow such an equation on the grounds that it simply
does not exist.
--
living in the Pavilion : v. Intensifier of bowling from the Pavilion
end (qv); as in 'He doesn't bowl from the Pavilion end, mate. That one
lives in the fucking Pavilion'.
Kadaitcha Man
mountain foreigner, a despicable shrill-voiced supplicant, a
flea-infested thief unworthy of a thing so stol'n, a filthy black
magician, I hate thee, pronounce thee a gross lout, a mindless slave.
Ye abused:
> Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to recognize evolution,
> and ~350 years to come clean about Galileo. Only a religious apologist
> would be impressed by that performance.
When doling out discredit, it is wise to also give credit if it's due. I
suggest you read up on Monsignor Georges Lema�tre.
HTH
--
Joan Collins' knickers See tart's window box.
Xan Du
Ha ha, you soo funny guy, I crack you up rong time.
> Are you still worshiping Mao and deny Bejing square masacre ?
"Masacre" not in my engrish dictionaly, but I sure it bad word ...
anyway, you sperr "Beijing" wlong, so I believe "fuck you" is collect
lesponse.
-Xan
Trolling Tracey12
What a nice example of Chinese idiot.
Who cares if your concentration camp is called Peking, Beting or Shiting ?
Just fuck-off to Mao kingdom until you become civilised.
fasgnadh
> On 1/11/2011 3:43 PM, fasgnadh wrote:
>> On 12/01/2011 3:04 AM, Xan Du wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2011 10:03 AM, abelard wrote:
>>>> On 11 Jan 2011 14:54:46 GMT, Bert Hyman<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>> Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to recognize evolution,
>>> and ~350 years to come clean about Galileo. Only a religious apologist
>>> would be impressed by that performance.
>>
>> Lets see, in 70,000 years of human history since we emerged from Africa,
>> atheism has never produced a single decent democratic state, in fact
>> it took atheists 1,917 years after the beginning of the common era to
>> produce the first atheist state, and that, like every other atheist
>> regime was a bloody, short-lived totalitarian tyranny.
>
> Yet before most "decent democratic states" were ever founded,
But why not compare modern with modern, apples with apples,
secular democracies built by religious societies with atheist
states of the SAME period, not with ancient oranges!?
> the majority of governments were totalitarian theocracies,
(Really? China, Germany, Napoleonic France, Cromwell or Elizabethan
England
.."theocracies" not monarchies? pffft!)
No matter, it's a pointless comparison, but if you need it explained
I can help you understand the concept of human progress,
social scientific and spiritual EVOLUTION.
Step one, things change.
In the case of humans they tend to move from simple and less developed
to more complex and more developed.
Except for athseist states, an anomoly i have demonstrated and you
can't deal with.. hence this diversion into the past...
In the primitive societies there was a survival advantage
to simple, authoritarian hierarchical order.
When the Ug tribe attacked you really didn't have time to
form a consensus view and send diplomatic pouches..
Feudalism followed, same story.
Jesus had some impact, at the level of personal moral
behaviour, but tribes and nations remained rigidly
hierarchical. He actually seemed to understand they would,
"Render unto Ceasar.."
Even the marxists understood that the social superstructure
was largely determined by the economic substructure.
But social evolution was taking place, in the ONLY civilisations
that existed, ones in RELIGIOUS societies.
Religious based societies were THE ONLY CIVILISATIONS GOING..
Doesn't that tell you something... ? B^]
Corollary for atheists:
Those that claim to have made no mistakes, MADE NOTHING!!!
You can't make a rational balanced comparison between
the civilisations based on religious values and the atheist
ones because.. the atheists never developed ....
Give it a try..
Name an alternative atheist state prior to 1917.
What we can see is a serious of religious societies producing
great and enduring civilisations. The Christian and Muslim ones are
merely the latest.. but their followers acknowledge that they,
with the Jews, are part of a continuum.. Judeao, Christian Islamic
civilisation... the Sikhs and Bahai and Zoroasterians are all
part of that same continuum. One God. From the mathematics of the
Hindu inventors of what we call Arabic numerals and the concept of
Zero, to Lemaitre and the Big Bang, science, mathematics, philosophy,
art, music, medicine architecture has been DOMINATED by theism.
All you see when you make pilgrimage to the origin of democracy
are the political forums and the TEMPLES! 8^o
Now that that is clear, let's deal with the anomolies on which your
biased case is made.. because you have done what your cited 'research'
does below.. it ELIMINATES all atheist states from the discussion,
by shifting to a time when NONE existed! (most of human history ;-)
> motivating the
> huddled masses to do their murderous bidding by threat of heresy and
> eternal damnation,
probably in the tens of thousands..
Do you think you are the first to discover the Dark Side?
Let me help you, as you seem to be a novice;
The inquisitions, witch burnings, crusades, don't forget
the Borgia popes, Salem.. we all know, Xan.. what we are trying
to do is get you to make a balanced COMPARISON with the alternative;
It's ugly, but NOTHING compared to 70,000,000 dead in atheist
regimes.. NOT IN PRIMITIVE CONDITIONS OF PRE-LITERATE
MEDIEVALISM, but in the so-called MODERN ERA, when comparable
majority religious societies had evolved tolerant secular
democracies with separation of church and state to PREVENT
one doctrine usinr the power of the state to DOMINATE,
and possibly oppress all others.. .. AS HAPPENED IN EVERY
ATHEIST STATE IN HUMAN HISTORY.
You see, lad, the argument is between the theism and atheism,
not secularism, which is an innovation of the RELIGIOUS, not the
atheist states.
A challenge with evidence is welcome.
Otherwise I'm really done right here.
I have observed all the facts you snipped and don't want to deal with
I have read ahead and seen stufff you uncritically quote that I have
demolished in 2009 in this forum
but my thesis is clearly stated and not challenged by anything
in your post.
I will, however not snip it all, as you have done, but
out of courtesy repeat what is already on the record,
from the time when the denizens of alt.atheism had not
yet realised that their arguments were mere paper tigers;
> all of which is fully justified and encouraged by the
> sacred text from which they claimed authority.
Using the New testament, justify any of it;
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
take more space if you need it.
It was all done DESPITE the teaching of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, et al.
> By the way, in case you haven't heard, there is no atheist bible.
WTF? B^p
There is no atheist ANYTHING of substance, just a MOUNTAIN
of 70,000,000 skulls and a pack of whining pig-ignorant, smart-arsed
juvenile fuckwits.. whining about the giants on whose shoulders
the modern world stands, complaining about a slight smell from those
who did the long yards dragging humanity out of the desert and the
jungle...
I see no reason to be impressed.. with the Men who Come Behind
The Men Who Come Behind
Henry Lawson
There's a class of men (and women) who are always on their guard—
Cunning, treacherous, suspicious—feeling softly—grasping hard—
Brainy, yet without the courage to forsake the beaten track—
Cautiously they feel their way behind a bolder spirit’s back.
If you save a bit of money, and you start a little store—
Say, an oyster-shop, for instance, where there wasn’t one before—
When the shop begins to pay you, and the rent is off your mind,
You will see another started by a chap that comes behind.
So it is, and so it might have been, my friend, with me and you—
When a friend of both and neither interferes between the two;
They will fight like fiends, forgetting in their passion mad and
blind,
That the row is mostly started by the folk who come behind.
They will stick to you like sin will, while your money comes and goes,
But they’ll leave you when you haven’t got a shilling in your clothes.
You may get some help above you, but you’ll nearly always find
That you cannot get assistance from the men who come behind.
There are many, far too many, in the world of prose and rhyme,
Always looking for another’s ‘footsteps on the sands of time.’
Journalistic imitators are the meanest of mankind;
And the grandest themes are hackneyed by the pens that come behind.
If you strike a novel subject, write it up, and do not fail,
They will rhyme and prose about it till your very own is stale,
As they raved about the region that the wattle-boughs perfume
Till the reader cursed the bushman and the stink of wattle-bloom.
They will follow in your footsteps while you’re groping for the
light ;
But they’ll run to get before you when they see you’re going right;
And they’ll trip you up and baulk you in their blind and greedy heat,
Like a stupid pup that hasn’t learned to trail behind your feet.
Take your loads of sin and sorrow on more energetic backs!
Go and strike across the country where there are not any tracks!
And—we fancy that the subject could be further treated here,
But we’ll leave it to be hackneyed by the fellows in the rear.
> While you're mulling over that shocker,
That you have no point?
Are you planning any more shockingly inane brain farts?
You seem to be far too impressed by your own non sequiturs.
> feast your eyes on this:
Ah, a sumptuous meal, if you like eating shit...
> <quote>
> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Been there, done that over ...long ago. [proof below}
Xan, didn't "moses.creighton" tell you it's an 'institute'
of ONE ATHEIST with a website!? B^D
It is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal, Xan! B^D
The actual author, Gregory Paul, presented the same selective
data in another paper I also critiqued in alt.atheism in 2009;
http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf
Same shit, same doorstep, different brown paper bag..
I'm sure the atheists will continue to flog it, it's all they have to
cling to! B^D
I will give you the abbreviated version so you can see how facile this
rubbish 'research' from an atheist Blog is;
"The last survey interviewed approximately 23,000 people in almost
all (17) of the developed democracies"
NOT ONE INTERVIEW for this study was conducted in any atheist state!!!
All were conducted in modern secular democracies every one of which
is
a majority religious society!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why is that? Well firstly because every atheist state bar one was
a CATASTROPHIC CLUSTER FUCK WHICH KILLED MILLIONS AND THEN COLLAPSED
UNDER THE WEIGHT OF IT"S MISERY DESPAIR AND DEATH. The USSR, Maoist
China, Pol Pots Cambodia...
The one still surviving exception, is such a basket case that it's
people are forced to eat grass during it's famines.
Still it is there, and more free of the "pollution" of religion
than any other on earth.. B^]
Somehow, this 'study' *selected out* all the atheist states
available..
...probably because they don't have electricity and haven't developed
paper yet! B^D
Sorry Xan, you really should READ the shit the atheists quote at you
before you speak to someone capable of CRITICAL THOUGHT who
has been down this road before -
This is a joke:
> [18] In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
> correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
> mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the
> prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9).
Xan, do you honestly believe that the USA with it's "higher rate of
belief" (80%) "is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction"
greater than those of North Korea, an atheist shithole!??? B^D
If so, I will be pleased to fund your ticket so you can escape to
the
atheist state joys of the Demokkkratik Peeples Repugnik of Nth
Korea!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
> The most theistic prosperous
> democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin
> predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of
> the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always
> scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to
> the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of
> societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend
> because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious
> or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong
> religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal
> health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution
> usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least
> theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional.
Nth Korea is the least theistic state on the planet, religion is
banned
and the state has as the CIA described it, developed Juche, a statist
doctrine simply to maintain the fiction that htey allow 'belief'.
You are free to believe what the atheist state invented to get the
UN human rights Commission off their backs years ago..
No one bothers with that fiction any more.
Except Western atheists, who try and pretend it's a religion cos
their Nth Korean comrades tell them so!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
> None of the
> strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high
> levels of measurable dysfunction.
That's because the MOST SECULARISED states, the atheist states are NOT
DEMOCRATIC, yet that is excluded from the study!!! B^D
TOO MUCH DYSFUNCTION FOR THE DYSFUNCTION METER IT SEEMS!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA
Xan.. you don't seem to be aware, 'atheist' is not a synonym
for 'secular'!
Democratic secular states were ALL built by religious
societies.. none by atheist regimes.
Name one, if you disagree.
Religious people, deeply aware of the fundamental problem all
of you inquisition obsessed medievalist critics don't seem to grasp,
were deeply aware of the problem when any single doctrine was
linked to the POWER OF THE STATE, and thus could dominate ALL
other doctrines, even opress them..(as happened in EVERY modern
atheist state, and other, earlier, primitive societies in the
medieval period) The solution to ensure FREEDOM of religion,
not freedom FROM religion, was to separate church from state,
and this was done in numerous modern MAJORITY religious societies
and never once in an atheist state.
Q.E.D.
> In some cases the highly religious
> U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic
> but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In
> other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes
> outstandingly so.
> </quote>
Blah blah blah... if you select the data and exclude
every atheist state then you have nothing to tell us about
atheist states.. do you understand, Xan?
Because if you don't show intellectual integrity at this point
I will assign you to the bit bucket of pointless poltroons
with Virgil and Yap.
You see, for me this is old ground.. I'm getting deja vu..
it happens whenever atheists ignore the hard facts, properly cited,
in genuine peer reviewed research which they can't refute
..and regurgitate already discredited 'research'(sic) which,
if they actually READ IT before they posted it, suggests their
their research and critical analysis skills are sub-epsilon! B^p
I take it you are not university educated. yes?
The history of dodgy atheist arguments #3056281;
# From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,talk.atheism,
# aus.politics,alt.religion.christianity,alt.usenet.kooks
# Subject: Atheists present distorted pseudo-research with
# SELECTIVE data!
# was Re: Atheism Vs. Truth - Item 18 - Pravda Propaganda
# Message-ID: <hLHrm.40739$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:54:53 GMT
^^^^^^^^
#
# >> I prefer the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of history.. because that reveals
# >> a reality which is anathema to atheists! B^}
#
# > Then see http://moses.creighton.edu
#
# LOL! That atheist rubbish was demolished as junk science
# when it was revealed it SELECTED it's data by EXCLUDING EVERY
# ATHEIST STATE from it's 'study' of non-religious nations!!!
#
# Absurd!
#
# We have atheists claiming that the USA is more DYSFUNCTIONAL
# than Nth Korea (because Nth Korea is EXCLUDED from the JUNK
'research'
# cited!!!!!! B^)
#
# > which now shows that when nations have eliminated
# > internal psychosocial dysfunctionality
#
# i.e. ATHEISM, ...then they start to PROSPER.. see: USSR, CHINA and
# Pol Pots Cambodia NONE of which were included in Virgil's
# Pseudo-science psychobabble webspite!! B^D
#
# All of which were totalitarian NIGHTMARES killing MILLIONS under
# atheist rule, but now are recovering and improving!! B^)
#
# Atheists have NO CLUE about history!
....
# I have read the 'research' and it doesn't even MENTION
# the atheist states, let alone compare them to the far more
# developed and less dysfunctional Western religious ones!
#
# B^D
#
# Clearly these stupid atheist twonks haven't even read it!
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAA
#
# It graphs the following small UNREPRESENTATIVE
# sample of majority religious western nations;
#
# Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, England,
# France, Germany, Holland, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
# New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
# United States.
#
# Note, it includes all the MAJORITY RELIGIOUS nations,
# but NOT ONE ATHEIST STATE! B^D Because they are such
# MASSIVE cluster fucks they have DESTROYED THEMSELVES! B^D
#
# The research doesn't even MENTION the MOST SECULAR
# states, the Atheist regimes; USSR, Maoist China,
# during the Cultural Devolution and Great Leap Backward,
# Pol Pot's Cambodia
# ..BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALL FAILED CATASTROPHICALLY!!!
# taking 70,00,000 people with them! 8^o
#
# So, they don't feature on the study's "DISFUNCTION"
# radar at all, simply because they are SO DISFUNCTIONAL
# they have self destructed! LOL!
#
# The Soviet empire collapsed, it's suffering people couldn't
# wait to embrace religious and political freedom.
# China passed religious liberalisation laws in 1982, since
# which 300,000,000 ex-atheists have found religion, and prosperity!
#
# So, the answer to the question "How could the study find
# Atheist North Korea LESS DYSFUNCTIONAL than the richest
# Superpower on the planet, the USA?" is simple..
#
# they EXCLUDED Atheist Nth Korea, and EVERY OTHER Atheist
# state, from the 'study'. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHA
#
# Talk about choosing data to support your desired finding!!!! B^D
#
# The UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) the common
# measure of development. It ranks those countries on
# three essential indicators- GDP/Life expectancy/Literacy
#
# Country HDI Position
#
# Norway .968 2
# Canada .967 3
# Australia .965 4
# Ireland .959 5
# Holland .958 6
# Sweden .958 7
# Japan .956 8
# Switzerland .955 10
# France .955 11
# Denmark .952 13
# Austria .951 14
# United States .950 15
# Spain .949 16
# Italy .945 19
# New Zealand .944 20
# England (UK) .942 21
# Germany .940 23
#
# The last remaining atheist state - North Korea -
# is off the HDI scale:
#
# "Until 1998, the United Nations published HDI
# and GDP per capita figures for North Korea,
# which stood at a medium level of human
# development at 0.766 (ranked 75th) and a
# GDP per capita of $4,058"
#
#
# http://hdr.undp.org/en/
#
# With such a selective manipulation of data, it
# reads like post modernist psuedo-science and sociological
# claptrap. Certainly not Hard Science! pfffft!
#
# Only Atheists can swallow it, because they HAVEN'T READ IT!
# From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.cambodia,
# alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,aus.politics
# Subject: Re: Is this happening near you too?
# Message-ID: <2f_vm.43676$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:13:50 GMT
# ^^^^
# panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
#
# Are you still peddling this discredited rubbish; B^D
#
# > http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
#
# > Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
#
# The USA is less moral than Pol Pots Genocidal atheist regime,
# Lenins Red Terror, Mao's Great Leap Backward and Kim ill
# Fuk's atheist Dystopia?
#
# Why don't you demonstrate you sincerely believe that by
# moving to Nth Korea!
>> And atheists have NEVER apologised for the 70,000,000 victims
>> of atheist regimes.
>
> I've got 25,000,000 for Stalin, a man who had been raised by a devoutly
> religious mother to be a priest.
You seem to have left out Lenin.. didn't he have 'a mum who wanted
him to be a priest'?
B^D
Selective treatment of historical data just makes you look like a
fraud.
Here's another one, an atheist favourite, ALL insinuation, no
evidence, (like yours); "Stalin went to a religious school"
Sure, and Mao walked past a church, (which he later burnt down B^)
Stalin went to an orthodox school because.. they were the ONLY ONES
AVAILABLE (seems the atheists weren't in the business of education, or
anything socially useful!) ..and he dropped out to pursue a career in
athesit thuggery and mass murder! B^[
Lenin started the atheist agenda in the USSR, and the death toll;
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
and all you have is "Stalin's mum wanted him to be a priest"?
that is the weakest attempt at slandering religion by insinuation
I have ever seen!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
I just can't take you seriously.
Your research skills are those that would make a pravda propagandist
proud, you lack any critical analysis of the drivel the athesits feed
you and don't appear capable of thinking for yourself.
> His purge of religion rightfully
> includes elements of Marxist-Leninist doctrines,
Oh, so this is the rightful inclusion of atheist doctrine?;
"Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested.
In 1918, the Cheka under Felix Dzerzhinsky executed over
3000 Orthodox clergymen of all ranks.
Some were drowned in ice-holes or poured over with cold water
in winter until they turned to ice-pillars.
- John Shelton Curtis, The Russian Church and the Soviet State
(Boston: Little Brown, 1953)
> but you conveniently
> ignore the fact
I haven't conveniently ignored any fact, you dull propaganda tool.
You have Skipped Lenin and are now providing the usual atheist
apologia for stalin.. "His mum wanted him to be a priest"
the rest is irrelevant to the point, which you have long abandoned.
you cannot deny " “Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!” so you
attempt
to move to other matters:
> that he also purged members of the existing communist
> party and intellectuals and scholars who opposed his rise to power.
so, atheists are disloyal dogs who turn on each other...
what's YOUR point? B^p
> Even
> more egregiously, you leave out the fact that when Hitler invaded in
> 1941, Stalin embraced the Russian Orthodox church as a method to revive
> Russian patriotism in the face of an external enemy.
Wow, a pathological liar donning a clearly fake mask to
achieve a desperate political goal..
you have really convinced me, Stalin was a True Believer!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
So was Lenin, all the atheists are! B^D
You are either delusional, dimwitted or deceitful
I'm bored with your pathetic time-wasting.
"You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...
all this talk about God is sheer nonsense"
- Stalin
E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin,
Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940
Now if you think atheist sociopath, who had trusted party members
shot for mere suspicion of disloyalty and spies everywhere, would
allow
the party's printing house to publish lies about him in his official
biography, you need your head read.
Where did Lenin Go?
Where's Mao, the Cultural Devolution, the Great Leap Backward?
40,000,000 dead..
and you are still banging on because the one man, dead for
centuries was browbeaten by the church, which apologised
for it, while you no atheists ever have for their genocides!!!!
> Pol Pot was a bit player in this game, he racked up an estimated
> 3,000,000 bodies at most, some say as few as 1,000,000. Further, his
> pattern of oppression was similar to Stalin -- he removed elements that
> opposed him because they opposed him. His lieutenants were largely
> Buddhist and Christian.
>
> 17,000,000 for Hitler
Germany was not an atheist state, it was a Nazi one.
>> Only an atheist apologist would be impressed by that performance.
>
> There are 25,000,000 left I can't account for here.
The explanation is simple.. you have never heard of Lenin
and didn't read the post you snipped.
ANd your opinions are unfounded beliefs:
> But my general
> argument is that Stalin should apologize for Stalin, Hitler for Hitler,
> and Pol Pot for Pol Pot.
>
> For the rest of your so-called point, I would refer you to the study I
> posted above which shows that
If you conduct a pseudo survey by selectively omitting every atheist
state, you can pretend it's a fantasitc form of social organisation
and ignore 70,000,000 dead.
Congratulations Xan. A tour de force! B^p
Unless you actually READ and THINK about it.
Are you still interested in that ticket to Nth Korea, the last atheist
paradise.. I will be happy to fund your trip.
You really don't seem suited for these horrid dysfunctional secular
democratic states built by majority religious societies.
> And why shouldn't this be the case? The founding documents of the
> world's major religions are thousands of years out of date,
And there are lots of people willing to ignore the changes, fundies,
clinging to their literal interpretations and rigid dogmatism, the
Christian and the atheist ones, there are even some of them
within the church...
> and none of
> them can seem to resolve their serious differences with each other by
> producing any compelling evidence that their god is the right one,
It's the same god, the church agrees:
At vatican II;
# "DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH
# TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
#
# NOSTRA AETATE
#
# PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
# ...
# 3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.
# They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself;
# merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5)
# who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to
# even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith
# of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God."
Of course the Christian Bible has proclaimed the Unity of God for
millennia, long before there were Christians to argue over it;
"Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad."
"Hear oh Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is One!"
"Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me"
(Isaiah 43:10).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yrFp0W6g_c
And Islam similarly proclaims it in the Muslim's daily
statement of faith in ONE GOD...
la illaha illa Allah
... based firmly on the Qur'an;
# "And argue not with the People of the Scripture
# unless it be in ( a way) that is better,
# save with such of them as do wrong;
# and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
# and revealed unto you;
# our God and your God is One,
# and unto Him we surrender."
#
# - The Qur'an Sura 29 verse 46
Where have you been son?
Missed the parliament of world religions? B^D
pope kisses Qur'an
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A055rcKoran.htm
> Opportunistic and amoral leaders of all sorts of publicly expressed
> (dis)belief have taken advantage of this faith-based ideological
> friction to fulfill their own selfish and murderous purposes almost
> since the first rock was hurled in anger.
You just keep throwing rocks.. after all, it's the ONLY
thing the atheist regimes had.. no lasting civilisation,
not even a decent democracy... not even a small brick shithouse...
Oh, you're welcome, you are easily satisfied with swallowing
without question any shitdribble that calls itself a 'journal'
and feeds your pain and disappointment after realising you
were in a cult.
> -Xan
Olrik
Richo
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:21:09 -0800 (PST), Richo wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > The Catholic church is playing catch up - but my hope is that it is
> > too late.
>
> > I actually would prefer it if they became ever more anachronistic and
> > irrelevent.
> > It would hasten its ultimate demise which I would see as a blessing
> > for humanity.
>
> Fear not, Mark! Benny intends to restore the RCC to the glory of the Middle
> Ages.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/fb5117ef24bccc24
>
> Regards,
>
> Josef
>
>
8-)
Mark.
Brian E. Clark
spammer_...@guffymail.com says...
> What a nice example of Chinese idiot.
>
> Who cares if your concentration camp is called Peking, Beting or Shiting ?
>
> Just fuck-off to Mao kingdom until you become civilised.
That was plain rude. As a penance you must watch Jet Li's
"Hero" each night for a year, or until you can survive a
barrage of ten thousand arrows, whichever comes first.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Xan Du
Oh, you really ought not to say such things.
1096-1099, the First Crusade, started by Pope Urban II to help the
Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos run the Turks out of Anatolia.
That primary goal soon became secondary as Urban turned his attention to
recapturing Jerusalem from the Muslims, who had sacked it shortly after
their decisive victory in the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 -- a battle that
ended with 70 to 120,000 dead Byzantines to only 4,000 Muslims. So, you
could argue that 460 years later, the Muslims occupying Jerusalem had it
coming to them when the Crusaders sacked the city and killed around
70,000 of them with a few odd Jews mixed in as a bonus. Either way,
that's a lot of people pushing up daisies, martyrs for their respective
versions of the Almighty.
1145–1149, the Second Crusade, started by Pope Eugene III in retaliation
for the sacking of the County of Edessa by Turkish govenor Imad ad-Din
Zengi the year prior. Long story short, Louis VII of France and Conrad
III of Germany led the Crusaders into battle, got pissed off at each
other by the end, setting up a lot of European conflict for centuries
after. The Muslims achieved decisive victories in the Holy Land, the
Christians gained decisive victories in Spain and the Baltic states, but
failed to restore Edessa. The Byzantines did make nice with the Turks
however. Other than that, not much changed, but a lot of people died.
1189–1192, the Third Crusade, Henry II of England and Philip II of
France stopped fighting each other and decided to take back Jerusalem
from Saladin. They failed to do so, but they kicked the crap out of the
Muslims in every other engagement in the campaign. Saladin agreed to
allow unarmed Christian pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Henry and Philip
got pissed off at each other, again. A lot of people died.
1202–1204, The Fourth Crusade, first called for by Pope Innocent III
shortly after his succession to the papacy in 1198, with the goal of
reclaiming Jerusalem from the Muslims. Nobody in Europe really took
much interest -- the Third Crusade hadn't worked out so well for the
home team, the Germans were bucking papal rule, and England and France
were still fighting each other. Innocent enlisted the help of French
priest Fulk of Neuilly to preach the crusade for him, and he was
successful, becoming quite popular in the process. He lost popularity
when it became suspected that he'd diverted funds intended for the war
to his own personal use, similar to charges also levied against Innocent
as well. Nonetheless the war happened, but in the Balkans not the Holy
Land, and the result was the split of the Church into the Eastern
Orthodox and the (Western) Roman Catholic Church. Oh yeah, a lot of
people died.
1213–1221, the Fifth Crusade, Pope Innocent III and his successor Pope
Honorius III again decide to sack Jerusalem by way of Egypt. This time
the pawns were Andrew II of Hungary and Duke Leopold VI of Austria. The
Egyptians kicked their asses, many Crusaders were captured, but returned
as part of an 8 year peace agreement. A smaller direct engagement at
Jerusalem also failed when the catapults didn't show up in time for the
siege. A lot of people died.
1228, the Sixth Crusade, Frederik II, the Holy Roman Emperor decides to
sack Jerusalem. A real yawner because almost nobody died. Jerusalem
didn't fall either, but was retaken by the Christians sometime before
the Seventh Crusade starting in 1248.
We now pause the Crusade parade to note that in 1218, Ghengis Khan and
the Mongol horde began sweeping through Central Asia. Notably, they
displaced the Persian Turks who for a time occupied Jerusalem (1244)
before being overrun by Khan, who then abandoned Jerusalem because it
lacked strategic value to him. Somewhere in all this mess, the walls
were torn down and it changed hands between the Christians and the
Muslims several times. All very confusing and boring except for the
fact that some people probably died.
1248-1254, the Seventh Crusade, was led by Louis IX of France. The
European Christians didn't really care that the Persian Turks had taken
Jerusalem in 1244 -- it had changed hands between Muslims and Christians
so many times already that this was beginning to be old hat. However,
they had a real hardon for the Egyptians. They got their asses kicked
and went home after a lot of people died. Perhaps the most interesting
thing of note during this time was the ongoing power struggle between
Pope Innocent IV and Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor. Why God didn't
simply pick one of them to be in charge is anybody's guess, but I can
safely say that some people probably died because of it.
1270, the Eighth Crusade, started by Louis IX, King of France. He was
pissed off at the Syrians, probably for being Muslims, but also because
they were picking on Christians in the tattered remnants of earlier
Crusader States. He died for his troubles after drinking some bad water
upon establishing a beachhead at Tunis. His last words were "Jerusalem"
even though they were nowhere near it at the time. The good news is
that a trade route to Tunis was opened up as part of the cease-fire
agreement.
1271–1272, the Ninth Crusade, started by Prince Edward of England
because the idiot French Louis IX died before capturing Tunis, and he
wanted something a little more profitable than just a damn trade route.
It wasn't a very gallant affair for the Christians, who were getting
tired of getting their asses kicked by Muslims in Egypt -- so much so
that they let it happen again. This weak showing spelled the end of
Christian influence in the Holy Land, and the remaining Crusader States
eventually failed, in which a lot of people probably died.
After trying 9 times, and failing, to take control over a bunch of sand
-- whose most redeeming quality as far as I can see is that it's where
Christ allegedly lived and died -- Christians decided it would be much
more fun to persecute themselves for awhile. They did it with alacrity
and reckless abandon, bringing us such joys as the Spanish Inquisition,
the Protestant Reformation, St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, The Thirty
Years' War, The Troubles of Northern Ireland -- ooh, but I skipped one.
On January 30, 1933, a 43 year-old Catholic became Chancellor of
Germany. Hacked off over how the Treaty of Versailles had kept Germany
under the thumb of France and England since the end of WWI, and
seemingly more than a little pissed off at Jews and Muslims for simply
having been born, Adolf Hitler began a series of political maneuvers
after the Reichstag fire that lead to him assuming the role of President
and Chancellor of Germany on 2 August 2, 1934. Thus began his Crusade.
A lot of people died.
"Bullshit" you say. I know, that's not how I learned it either -- it's
just not politically correct to call Hitler a Christian, after all, no
True Christian would ever do such a horrible thing, right? And yet,
there's all that history laid out up above showing us that, yes,
Christians are just as evil as Jews, Muslims, Hindus and atheists.
Here, have a quote to soothe your troubled soul:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
men to fight against them and who, God's truth! In boundless love as a
Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the
Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of
the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight
for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand
years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before
the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the
Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated,
but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there
is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the
distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my
own people." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922
> The most of Universities and the best schools were established by the
> Catholic Church.
A lot of religions have established great schools. My Mormon sister
went to Catholic High School because it was better than any of the
public ones. We gave her a hard time about this. She's much better
educated now than we are, the only one of 5 to go to graduate school.
Humanity is capable of great things, it is capable of terrible things.
Some days we get it right, some days we get it wrong. At the end of the
day, some of are dead while others live to fight another day. The
smarter ones among us figure out how to stay out of the fight, and we
live to make love another day while the more excitable and ill-informed
go die doing the dirty work of the rich and powerful.
It's all really how you look at it. This is how I see it -- and while I
haven't read a ton of history, I have a pretty good idea that you can
pretty much talk all the shit you want about saint or sinner if you read
enough of it.
-Xan
Xan Du
> Xan Du, dissembling mountebank, thou are false in all. Ye ineffective
> runagate, away, ye insane most impenetrable cur. Ye chortled:
>
>> On 1/11/2011 1:00 PM, abelard wrote:
>
>>> maybe be you mean the sheer numbers killed by the murderous socialist
>>> cult....if so, go study for yourself....
>>
>> No no no, your claim, your burden of proof.
>
> He doesn't need to prove it, old mate, because it is true, provided that
> one assumes that socialism equates exactly to communism. I've posted the
> data, with verifiable references, several times.
>
> What he has to prove is that socialism is communism.
>
> Of course, no reasonable-minded person (that would be you, me and other
> non-rednecks) would allow such an equation on the grounds that it simply
> does not exist.
>
of Godwin's law I'm having trouble remembering this part of the thread
... but it seems to me that my mindset was simple rules of engagement --
make an assertion, cough up the proof. You and I both know I already
know the answer, but that wasn't the point old boy. The elephant in the
room is all the killings that took place prior to the Industrial
Revolution -- that's the light I'm attempting to shine here.
-Xan
Xan Du
Wilco.
>
> HTH
>
Or Gregor Johann Mendel hey?
-Xan
Kadaitcha Man
beetle-browed canker. Ye toad-spotted huge bombard of sack, thou art
flea-infested and mad-bred. Ye squabbled:
> On 1/11/2011 9:40 PM, Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> Xan Du, dissembling mountebank, thou are false in all. Ye ineffective
>> runagate, away, ye insane most impenetrable cur. Ye chortled:
>>
>>> On 1/11/2011 1:00 PM, abelard wrote:
>>
>>>> maybe be you mean the sheer numbers killed by the murderous socialist
>>>> cult....if so, go study for yourself....
>>>
>>> No no no, your claim, your burden of proof.
>>
>> He doesn't need to prove it, old mate, because it is true, provided that
>> one assumes that socialism equates exactly to communism. I've posted the
>> data, with verifiable references, several times.
>>
>> What he has to prove is that socialism is communism.
>>
>> Of course, no reasonable-minded person (that would be you, me and other
>> non-rednecks) would allow such an equation on the grounds that it simply
>> does not exist.
>>
> Having just fired off a massive missive that culminated with a violation
> of Godwin's law I'm having trouble remembering this part of the thread
> .... but it seems to me that my mindset was simple rules of engagement
> -- make an assertion, cough up the proof. You and I both know I already
> know the answer, but that wasn't the point old boy. The elephant in the
> room is all the killings that took place prior to the Industrial
> Revolution -- that's the light I'm attempting to shine here.
Nice troll, old chap. Carry on. Pip! Pip! Hey, what?
--
furry bicycle stand See fish mitten.
Kadaitcha Man
no-necked upstart, a raw-boned smiling pickthanks, a doghearted
whoreson caterpillar, a dog, a cat, a mouse, a rat to scratch a man to
death. Ye sneered:
Or him, yes.
--
cowboy walk : n. Broad, rolling gait required when walking to the bog
with the turtles head (qv) exposed.
Xan Du
> Xan Du, oh, ye bald fishmonger. Ye are an obscene common gamester, a
> no-necked upstart, a raw-boned smiling pickthanks, a doghearted
> whoreson caterpillar, a dog, a cat, a mouse, a rat to scratch a man to
> death. Ye sneered:
>
>> On 1/11/2011 9:49 PM, Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> Xan Du, there's small choice in rotten apples. Thou art a no-chinned
>>> mountain foreigner, a despicable shrill-voiced supplicant, a
>>> flea-infested thief unworthy of a thing so stol'n, a filthy black
>>> magician, I hate thee, pronounce thee a gross lout, a mindless slave.
>>> Ye abused:
>>>
>>>> Let's see, it took ~150 years for the Vatican to recognize evolution,
>>>> and ~350 years to come clean about Galileo. Only a religious apologist
>>>> would be impressed by that performance.
>>>
>>> When doling out discredit, it is wise to also give credit if it's due. I
>>> suggest you read up on Monsignor Georges Lema�tre.
>>
>> Wilco.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>> Or Gregor Johann Mendel hey?
>
> Or him, yes.
>
-Xan
Xan Du
Same old bait too.
-Xan
Kadaitcha Man
thing, that shouldst repair my youth, thou heap'st a years age on me.
Ye affirmed:
It was the face-scratching and the hair-pulling that got my attention.
--
pump : v. To fart; poot; pass wind; shoot bunnies; drop a rose petal.
Kadaitcha Man
gorbellied bawd between fold and want, a cankerous upstart, a beggarly
agate-ring, thou would answer very well to a whipping. Ye imputed:
Fagsnads is very, very funny, IMO. One of the few posters actually worth
reading.
--
ringburner : n. A hot curry which results in ring sting (qv) the next
day, and a Japanese flag (qv).
Ho Lee Fuk
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7052OC20110106
> "Some atheists say science can prove that God does not exist, but
> Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting"
> because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not manage to
> explain the ultimate sense of reality ..."
>
> universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many
> questions unanswered.
>
> its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God,
> creator of heaven and earth," he said.
>
> Church's image of being anti-science, a label that stuck when it
> condemned Galileo for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun,
> challenging the words of the Bible.
>
> a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a
> natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.
>
> The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism -- the belief that
> God created the world in six days as described in the Bible -- and
> says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the
> way God created the world.
>
> But it objects to using evolution to back an atheist philosophy that
> denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects
> to using Genesis as a scientific text."
>
>
> --
> web site atwww.abelard.org- news comment service, logic, economics
> energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
> all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
> the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
> good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
> only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
the katholic church has been teaching pedofilia for a long......thats
reality
abelard
>On 1/11/2011 1:00 PM, abelard wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:32:28 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Like a lot of people, I'd like to know that there's loving and
>>> benevolent God, and that this often miserable mortal existence has an
>>> eternal purpose. The Vatican does not give me that hope -- none of the
>>> Abrahamic religions do.
>>
>> so?
>
>So ... I'm not disposed to be impressed when one of them sees the
>writing on the wall and acknowledges error centuries after the facts
>have been established. I would expect that an organization which claims
>to be the only legitimate representative of the creator of the universe
>would tend to lead the way in discovering and teaching the true nature
>of the earth and the cosmos. Instead what I see are initial cries of
>blasphemy followed by centuries of active resistance, and finally
>apologies and recognition.
god knows why you believe how impressed you may or may not be is a
useful scientific measure
>>>> in the meanwhile, atheistic socialism has killed many tens of millions
>>>
>>> I see, having no answer to the topic at hand, you change the subject.
>>> But I'm game. Be specific now, names and numbers.
>>
>> maybe be you mean the sheer numbers killed by the murderous socialist
>> cult....if so, go study for yourself....
>
>No no no, your claim, your burden of proof.
such data is so widespread you can look it up for yourself....
you seem to be a particularly lazy minded fellow....
>> if you mean a start on the vatican recognition of the desperate evil
>> of the cult...you can start here
>> http://www.abelard.org/briefings/marxism-encyclicals2.asp
>
>Ok:
>
><quote>
>Pope Pius IX, 16 June, 1846 – 7 February, 1878
>
>This was the Pope who, in 1870, declared the Pope (himself!) to be
>infallible.
so?
you also seem unusually concerned with irrelevant trivia....
btw...the conditions of so-called infallibility are regarded as
extremely limited...and even somewhat of an embarrassment.....
even at the time, the pronouncement was widely opposed by
sections of the hierarchy and by theologians...
>8 December 1849: On the Church in the pontifical states /nostis et
>nobiscum Pope Pius IX
>Written the year following the publication of the Communist Manifesto
>
>18. As regards this teaching and these theories, it is now generally
>known that the special goal of their proponents is to introduce to the
>people the pernicious fictions of Socialism and Communism by misapplying
>the terms "liberty" and "equality." The final goal shared by these
>teachings, whether of Communism or Socialism, even if approached
>differently, is to excite by continuous disturbances workers and others,
>especially those of the lower class, whom they have deceived by their
>lies and deluded by the promise of a happier condition. They are
>preparing them for plundering, stealing, and usurping first the Church's
>and then everyone's property. After this they will profane all law,
>human and divine, to destroy divine worship and to subvert the entire
>ordering of civil societies.
>
>6. You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is
>to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to
>draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism,
>by confusing them with perverted teachings. But these enemies realize
>that they cannot hope for any agreement with the Catholic Church, which
>allows neither tampering with truths proposed by faith, nor adding any
>new human fictions to them. This is why they try to draw the Italian
>people over to Protestantism, which in their deceit they repeatedly
>declare to be only another form of the same true religion of Christ,
>thereby just as pleasing to God. Meanwhile they know full well that the
>chief principle of the Protestant tenets, i.e., that the holy scriptures
>are to be understood by the personal judgment of the individual, will
>greatly assist their impious cause. They are confident that they can
>first misuse the holy scriptures by wrong interpretation to spread their
>errors and claim God's authority while doing it. Then they can cause men
>to call into doubt the common principles of justice and honor.
></quote>
>
>Is this a sufficient place to start?
i don't mind...more for you to say....
meanwhile benedict has several times spoken out on the matter...
much of it under the heading of 'liberation theology'...a pseudo-
christianist (in fact marxist) cult that includes obarmy...
>> it isn't a 'change of subject'....
>>
>> it takes humans time to learn and adapt...as another poster has hinted
>> to you...
>>
>>>> and yet there are still morons that vote for socialists...
>>>
>>> Specifics please.
>>
>> again, go study for yourself
>> here is another start point for you
>> http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm
>
>Howabouts you paste the relevant text along with the cite?
it's at the link if you require it...
if you wish to quote any bits for your own objectives...
be my guest
>>>> meanwhile the vatican recognised socialism as a desperate evil
>>>> within *very* short order ...
>>>
>>> You are referring to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum (On the
>>> Condition of Labour) I presume?
>>
>> your presumption is incorrect....rerum novarum is almost a side issue.
>
>See then my repeated calls for references and specifics. Observance of
>this etiquette goes a long way toward eliminating presumptions and
>misunderstandings.
you have appropriate links...you've even quoted from one!
>> see the first above link
>
>It quotes Leo XIII as well, at least I was in the ballpark, neh?
imv, yes, approximately....
>>>> perhaps you should do some hard thinking...
>>>
>>> Hey, I'm not the one who trotted out evolution and Galileo as examples
>>> of the Vatican getting it right and then changed the subject when called
>>> on it.
>>
>> your notion of 'the subject' is far too restricted....
>
>thphphthpt ... you raised a point, I countered, you changed the subject
>to dodge the counter. I'm more than happy to discuss wide-ranging
>topics, but I'm not happy about people who a) change the subject to
>avoid a specific argument and b) tell me what my notions are when they
>have little to no basis for knowing them.
depends entirely what you thing 'the subject' may be....
i think it is human inertia and mental incompetence....
you may think otherwise...perhaps you are rather neurotic on the cult
of 'atheism'
your logic is a least sloppy...if you believe you are in a position
to define 'the subject' without reference to those with whom you
try to communicate
>> so-called scientists making ignorant comments on religion are both
>> common and long standing...
>
>Surely a possibility, but all such statements suffer from a high degree
>of subjectivity, and are always seen through the lens of personal
>belief. Sweeping generalities in this vein are particularly useless.
i am *less sure* that 'all such statements'...whatever the 'such'
means in that context...
are necessarily 'subjective'....
your words are clearly coming from outside myself...
they are not 'subjective' in a useful sense....
fro sanity i'm better regarding your words as objects outside
myself...that is as 'objective'....
>> why do you restrict yourself to foolish comments made by some
>> religionists?
>
>I don't.
ok...
then statements recently made by benedict look like eminent
good sense to me
>> meanwhile benedict is making very sane pronouncements of
>> both galileo and evolution
>
>That's fantastic, it's about time. If only more religious leaders would
>follow his example it would go a long way toward reducing widespread
>ignorance and distrust of perfectly sound science.
and reducing the widespread ignorance of theology...
>Now to borrow a page from your playbook so that you can see how your own
>medicine tastes: when is the Pope going to figure out that condom use is
>an effective method of preventing the spread of STDs -- particularly the
>spread of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa?
benedict has recently made comments on condoms that suggest
he has a very good grasp of the problems arising...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804398
i would warn you that almost all commentators in the fossil media
on the meanings of the pope's words are very far from competent
this pope is unusually able...and far more able than most
commentators, including several 20th century popes...
eg. he is certainly far more able than john-paul and the dull pius 12
sorry for the delay, but your post was sufficiently detailed that i
had to attend a little rather than toss off a reply while
distracted...
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
Pink Freud
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:a7gri61nosrb1848q...@4ax.com...
Feel free to toss off as much as you like. Just do it in private, and don't
tell me about it.
abelard
>It's all really how you look at it. This is how I see it -- and while I
>haven't read a ton of history, I have a pretty good idea that you can
>pretty much talk all the shit you want about saint or sinner if you read
>enough of it.
this should interest you
http://www.abelard.org/hitler2.htm
meanwhile, if you wrote that lot yourself, i'd rather like
to reprint it under your name for my site....
ps, your comments on adolf are inadequate....
some of why, you may understand from the link
abelard
wrote:
i wondered which one it would be
you meet expectations
Pink Freud
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:52:53 -0000, "Pink Freud" <some...@about.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>news:a7gri61nosrb1848q...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:57:58 -0500, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 1/11/2011 1:00 PM, abelard wrote:
>>>
>>> sorry for the delay, but your post was sufficiently detailed that i
>>> had to attend a little rather than toss off a reply while
>>> distracted...
>
>>Feel free to toss off as much as you like. Just do it in private, and
>>don't
>>tell me about it.
>
> i wondered which one it would be
>
I said 'Don't tell me about it'.
Are you stupid?
abelard
wrote:
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:5ckri6hjusv6ji3km...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:52:53 -0000, "Pink Freud" <some...@about.com>
>> wrote:
>>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>>news:a7gri61nosrb1848q...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:57:58 -0500, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 1/11/2011 1:00 PM, abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> sorry for the delay, but your post was sufficiently detailed that i
>>>> had to attend a little rather than toss off a reply while
>>>> distracted...
>>
>>>Feel free to toss off as much as you like. Just do it in private, and
>>>don't
>>>tell me about it.
>>
>> i wondered which one it would be
>I said 'Don't tell me about it'.
>
>Are you stupid?
stick your fingers in your lugs...and scream and scream...
Xan Du
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:02:31 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> It's all really how you look at it. This is how I see it -- and while I
>> haven't read a ton of history, I have a pretty good idea that you can
>> pretty much talk all the shit you want about saint or sinner if you read
>> enough of it.
>
> this should interest you
> http://www.abelard.org/hitler2.htm
>
>
> meanwhile, if you wrote that lot yourself, i'd rather like
> to reprint it under your name for my site....
I wrote it myself, but it's a summary of of Wikipedia's summary without
much fact-checking or synthesis. There are some possible errors, plus
some dots I'd like to connect before I'd be comfortable letting you have
it. If you don't mind waiting a week or so, it's a research and writing
exercise I wouldn't mind doing.
> ps, your comments on adolf are inadequate....
> some of why, you may understand from the link
It was pure polemic and I was tired at that point. I'll review.
-Xan
abelard
>On 1/12/2011 11:06 AM, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:02:31 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It's all really how you look at it. This is how I see it -- and while I
>>> haven't read a ton of history, I have a pretty good idea that you can
>>> pretty much talk all the shit you want about saint or sinner if you read
>>> enough of it.
>>
>> this should interest you
>> http://www.abelard.org/hitler2.htm
>>
>>
>> meanwhile, if you wrote that lot yourself, i'd rather like
>> to reprint it under your name for my site....
>
>I wrote it myself, but it's a summary of of Wikipedia's summary without
>much fact-checking or synthesis. There are some possible errors, plus
>some dots I'd like to connect before I'd be comfortable letting you have
>it. If you don't mind waiting a week or so, it's a research and writing
>exercise I wouldn't mind doing.
i'd be delighted to have a tidied up version
ps, i noticed in your text, 'last words'....when it was last word :-)
>> ps, your comments on adolf are inadequate....
>> some of why, you may understand from the link
>
>It was pure polemic and I was tired at that point. I'll review.
understood...
regards
abelard
ps, i only read uk.politics.misc....so be sure to include that in
your communications with myself
the e-mail address is not usable....as i cannot publish any
e-mail addy without being inundated with spam...
if you give me a working e-mail addy i will get you a responding
addy
i extended the circulation of this post because of its nature...
abelard
pps...
i saw no reference to the anti-cathar 'crusade'....you may wish to
make a relevant note
i have an entry here:-
http://www.abelard.org/france/motorway-aires3.php
regards
Pink Freud
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:35:27 -0000, "Pink Freud" <some...@about.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>news:5ckri6hjusv6ji3km...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:52:53 -0000, "Pink Freud" <some...@about.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:a7gri61nosrb1848q...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:57:58 -0500, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 1/11/2011 1:00 PM, abelard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> sorry for the delay, but your post was sufficiently detailed that i
>>>>> had to attend a little rather than toss off a reply while
>>>>> distracted...
>>>
>>>>Feel free to toss off as much as you like. Just do it in private, and
>>>>don't
>>>>tell me about it.
>>>
>>> i wondered which one it would be
>
>>I said 'Don't tell me about it'.
>>
>>Are you stupid?
>
> stick your fingers in your lugs...and scream and scream...
>
How you choose to abuse yourself is your own business.
Keep it that way, please.
Xan Du
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:57:58 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 1/11/2011 1:00 PM, abelard wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:32:28 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Like a lot of people, I'd like to know that there's loving and
>>>> benevolent God, and that this often miserable mortal existence has an
>>>> eternal purpose. The Vatican does not give me that hope -- none of the
>>>> Abrahamic religions do.
>>>
>>> so?
>>
>> So ... I'm not disposed to be impressed when one of them sees the
>> writing on the wall and acknowledges error centuries after the facts
>> have been established. I would expect that an organization which claims
>> to be the only legitimate representative of the creator of the universe
>> would tend to lead the way in discovering and teaching the true nature
>> of the earth and the cosmos. Instead what I see are initial cries of
>> blasphemy followed by centuries of active resistance, and finally
>> apologies and recognition.
>
> god knows why you believe how impressed you may or may not be is a
> useful scientific measure
I know for a fact that my personal beliefs are not scientifically relevant.
>>>>> in the meanwhile, atheistic socialism has killed many tens of millions
>>>>
>>>> I see, having no answer to the topic at hand, you change the subject.
>>>> But I'm game. Be specific now, names and numbers.
>>>
>>> maybe be you mean the sheer numbers killed by the murderous socialist
>>> cult....if so, go study for yourself....
>>
>> No no no, your claim, your burden of proof.
>
> such data is so widespread you can look it up for yourself....
>
> you seem to be a particularly lazy minded fellow....
The word you may be looking for there is pedantic.
>>> if you mean a start on the vatican recognition of the desperate evil
>>> of the cult...you can start here
>>> http://www.abelard.org/briefings/marxism-encyclicals2.asp
>>
>> Ok:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Pope Pius IX, 16 June, 1846 – 7 February, 1878
>>
>> This was the Pope who, in 1870, declared the Pope (himself!) to be
>> infallible.
>
> so?
You tell me, I copied it verbatim from the link you provided.
> you also seem unusually concerned with irrelevant trivia....
>
> btw...the conditions of so-called infallibility are regarded as
> extremely limited...and even somewhat of an embarrassment.....
> even at the time, the pronouncement was widely opposed by
> sections of the hierarchy and by theologians...
So it makes sense I'd find the above text on your website.
Right, so Pius saw the Communist movement as a threat the Church's
influence. The above passage is political propaganda, not objective
scholarship (if there is such a thing).
> meanwhile benedict has several times spoken out on the matter...
> much of it under the heading of 'liberation theology'...a pseudo-
> christianist (in fact marxist) cult that includes obarmy...
I can only argue so many points at a time. I am loathe to take that one
up at the moment. Obama is often rather opaque to me, as are most
successful politicians -- which is the one thing about him that I find
rather transparent.
>>> it isn't a 'change of subject'....
>>>
>>> it takes humans time to learn and adapt...as another poster has hinted
>>> to you...
>>>
>>>>> and yet there are still morons that vote for socialists...
>>>>
>>>> Specifics please.
>>>
>>> again, go study for yourself
>>> here is another start point for you
>>> http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm
>>
>> Howabouts you paste the relevant text along with the cite?
>
> it's at the link if you require it...
>
> if you wish to quote any bits for your own objectives...
> be my guest
See again pedantic. I coughed up one quote already and I'm already
regretting the precedent.
>>>>> meanwhile the vatican recognised socialism as a desperate evil
>>>>> within *very* short order ...
>>>>
>>>> You are referring to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum (On the
>>>> Condition of Labour) I presume?
>>>
>>> your presumption is incorrect....rerum novarum is almost a side issue.
>>
>> See then my repeated calls for references and specifics. Observance of
>> this etiquette goes a long way toward eliminating presumptions and
>> misunderstandings.
>
> you have appropriate links...you've even quoted from one!
I wish I hadn't.
>>> see the first above link
>>
>> It quotes Leo XIII as well, at least I was in the ballpark, neh?
>
> imv, yes, approximately....
>
>>>>> perhaps you should do some hard thinking...
>>>>
>>>> Hey, I'm not the one who trotted out evolution and Galileo as examples
>>>> of the Vatican getting it right and then changed the subject when called
>>>> on it.
>>>
>>> your notion of 'the subject' is far too restricted....
>>
>> thphphthpt ... you raised a point, I countered, you changed the subject
>> to dodge the counter. I'm more than happy to discuss wide-ranging
>> topics, but I'm not happy about people who a) change the subject to
>> avoid a specific argument and b) tell me what my notions are when they
>> have little to no basis for knowing them.
>
> depends entirely what you thing 'the subject' may be....
>
> i think it is human inertia and mental incompetence....
>
> you may think otherwise...perhaps you are rather neurotic on the cult
> of 'atheism'
>
> your logic is a least sloppy...if you believe you are in a position
> to define 'the subject' without reference to those with whom you
> try to communicate
I'm just going to ignore this tack. It will only turn into boring
mudslinging.
>>> so-called scientists making ignorant comments on religion are both
>>> common and long standing...
>>
>> Surely a possibility, but all such statements suffer from a high degree
>> of subjectivity, and are always seen through the lens of personal
>> belief. Sweeping generalities in this vein are particularly useless.
>
> i am *less sure* that 'all such statements'...whatever the 'such'
> means in that context...
It was a sweeping generalization to answer your sweeping generalization:
"so-called scientists making ignorant comments on religion are both
common and long standing..."
> are necessarily 'subjective'....
>
> your words are clearly coming from outside myself...
> they are not 'subjective' in a useful sense....
>
> fro sanity i'm better regarding your words as objects outside
> myself...that is as 'objective'....
Clever dodge, but pointless.
>>> why do you restrict yourself to foolish comments made by some
>>> religionists?
>>
>> I don't.
>
> ok...
> then statements recently made by benedict look like eminent
> good sense to me
I agree.
>>> meanwhile benedict is making very sane pronouncements of
>>> both galileo and evolution
>>
>> That's fantastic, it's about time. If only more religious leaders would
>> follow his example it would go a long way toward reducing widespread
>> ignorance and distrust of perfectly sound science.
>
> and reducing the widespread ignorance of theology...
Please expound.
>> Now to borrow a page from your playbook so that you can see how your own
>> medicine tastes: when is the Pope going to figure out that condom use is
>> an effective method of preventing the spread of STDs -- particularly the
>> spread of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa?
>
> benedict has recently made comments on condoms that suggest
> he has a very good grasp of the problems arising...
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804398
I saw that news when it first broke. It told me that he either really
doesn't get it, or is unwilling to let on that he does. My money is on
the latter.
> i would warn you that almost all commentators in the fossil media
> on the meanings of the pope's words are very far from competent
That seems to be a function of how the media operates these days. I
gave up on television news a long time ago as it is now little more than
entertainment and opinion masquerading as reporting, and print media is
suffering from the pressure of very short news cycles due to the
increasingly on demand nature of the Internet.
As an aside, science fiction writer John Varley gave a fairly prescient
treatment of the effects of this in his 1993 novel _Steel Beach_,
wherein news was delivered in streaming fashion to portable devices
called "pads" to the general public. The "news" organizations that
provided this streaming content, often in audio/video but also in text,
were called "padloids". In that environment, minutes mattered. Getting
a scoop was the main objective, not careful reporting followed by
in-depth analysis.
> this pope is unusually able...and far more able than most
> commentators, including several 20th century popes...
> eg. he is certainly far more able than john-paul and the dull pius 12
I have little perspective on this. I have largely ignored the Catholic
Church most of my life.
> sorry for the delay, but your post was sufficiently detailed that i
> had to attend a little rather than toss off a reply while
> distracted...
>
> regards
No worries, I trusted you would get to it when you had time.
-Xan
Xan Du
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:45:44 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 1/12/2011 11:06 AM, abelard wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:02:31 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's all really how you look at it. This is how I see it -- and while I
>>>> haven't read a ton of history, I have a pretty good idea that you can
>>>> pretty much talk all the shit you want about saint or sinner if you read
>>>> enough of it.
>>>
>>> this should interest you
>>> http://www.abelard.org/hitler2.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> meanwhile, if you wrote that lot yourself, i'd rather like
>>> to reprint it under your name for my site....
>>
>> I wrote it myself, but it's a summary of of Wikipedia's summary without
>> much fact-checking or synthesis. There are some possible errors, plus
>> some dots I'd like to connect before I'd be comfortable letting you have
>> it. If you don't mind waiting a week or so, it's a research and writing
>> exercise I wouldn't mind doing.
>
> i'd be delighted to have a tidied up version
I'll let you know when I'm finished.
> ps, i noticed in your text, 'last words'....when it was last word :-)
Nuts, I'm forever misspelling "Jeru Salem".
-Xan
abelard
wrote:
no, i prefer to publicise it...
i read your posts
Pink Freud
Then you're a freak.
> i read your posts
>
But not for comprehension.
abelard
>On 1/12/2011 10:22 AM, abelard wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:57:58 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2011 1:00 PM, abelard wrote:
>>>> if you mean a start on the vatican recognition of the desperate evil
>>>> of the cult...you can start here
>>>> http://www.abelard.org/briefings/marxism-encyclicals2.asp
>>>
>>> Ok:
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Pope Pius IX, 16 June, 1846 – 7 February, 1878
>>>
>>> This was the Pope who, in 1870, declared the Pope (himself!) to be
>>> infallible.
>>
>> so?
>
>You tell me, I copied it verbatim from the link you provided.
i can't know its relevance...or otherwise to you...
you should reject your belief in mind reading...it's irrational
>> you also seem unusually concerned with irrelevant trivia....
>>
>> btw...the conditions of so-called infallibility are regarded as
>> extremely limited...and even somewhat of an embarrassment.....
>> even at the time, the pronouncement was widely opposed by
>> sections of the hierarchy and by theologians...
>
>So it makes sense I'd find the above text on your website.
i think i have a minor reference to it...but no more...
ah yes...
http://www.abelard.org/councils/councils.htm#ec20
i take it you mean pius 9....
the problem is deeply theological...it is far more than political
propaganda...it is the collectivist's tendency to discount the
value of the individual...
and to discount to self-responsibility of the individual...
>> meanwhile benedict has several times spoken out on the matter...
>> much of it under the heading of 'liberation theology'...a pseudo-
>> christianist (in fact marxist) cult that includes obarmy...
>
>I can only argue so many points at a time. I am loathe to take that one
>up at the moment.
no problem at all
> Obama is often rather opaque to me, as are most
>successful politicians -- which is the one thing about him that I find
>rather transparent.
agreed...he is very highly secretive as he pretends to be a
christianist
>>>> it isn't a 'change of subject'....
>>>>
>>>> it takes humans time to learn and adapt...as another poster has hinted
>>>> to you...
>>>>
>>>>>> and yet there are still morons that vote for socialists...
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifics please.
>>>>
>>>> again, go study for yourself
>>>> here is another start point for you
>>>> http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm
>>>
>>> Howabouts you paste the relevant text along with the cite?
>>
>> it's at the link if you require it...
>>
>> if you wish to quote any bits for your own objectives...
>> be my guest
>
>See again pedantic. I coughed up one quote already and I'm already
>regretting the precedent.
again, no problem
>>>>>> meanwhile the vatican recognised socialism as a desperate evil
>>>>>> within *very* short order ...
>>>>>
>>>>> You are referring to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum (On the
>>>>> Condition of Labour) I presume?
>>>>
>>>> your presumption is incorrect....rerum novarum is almost a side issue.
>>>
>>> See then my repeated calls for references and specifics. Observance of
>>> this etiquette goes a long way toward eliminating presumptions and
>>> misunderstandings.
>>
>> you have appropriate links...you've even quoted from one!
>
>I wish I hadn't.
still no problem...
hey, please cut out the deadwood if you can, as you reply
>>>>>> perhaps you should do some hard thinking...
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, I'm not the one who trotted out evolution and Galileo as examples
>>>>> of the Vatican getting it right and then changed the subject when called
>>>>> on it.
>>>>
>>>> your notion of 'the subject' is far too restricted....
>>>
>>> thphphthpt ... you raised a point, I countered, you changed the subject
>>> to dodge the counter. I'm more than happy to discuss wide-ranging
>>> topics, but I'm not happy about people who a) change the subject to
>>> avoid a specific argument and b) tell me what my notions are when they
>>> have little to no basis for knowing them.
>>
>> depends entirely what you thing 'the subject' may be....
>>
>> i think it is human inertia and mental incompetence....
>>
>> you may think otherwise...perhaps you are rather neurotic on the cult
>> of 'atheism'
>>
>> your logic is a least sloppy...if you believe you are in a position
>> to define 'the subject' without reference to those with whom you
>> try to communicate
>
>I'm just going to ignore this tack. It will only turn into boring
>mudslinging.
not by me it won't....
but again, no problem
>>>> so-called scientists making ignorant comments on religion are both
>>>> common and long standing...
>>>
>>> Surely a possibility, but all such statements suffer from a high degree
>>> of subjectivity, and are always seen through the lens of personal
>>> belief. Sweeping generalities in this vein are particularly useless.
>>
>> i am *less sure* that 'all such statements'...whatever the 'such'
>> means in that context...
>
>It was a sweeping generalization to answer your sweeping generalization:
>"so-called scientists making ignorant comments on religion are both
>common and long standing..."
ok
>> are necessarily 'subjective'....
>>
>> your words are clearly coming from outside myself...
>> they are not 'subjective' in a useful sense....
>>
>> fro sanity i'm better regarding your words as objects outside
>> myself...that is as 'objective'....
>
>Clever dodge, but pointless.
not to me....but you may see otherwise...
that's freedom!
>>>> why do you restrict yourself to foolish comments made by some
>>>> religionists?
>>>
>>> I don't.
>>
>> ok...
>> then statements recently made by benedict look like eminent
>> good sense to me
>
>I agree.
good
>>>> meanwhile benedict is making very sane pronouncements of
>>>> both galileo and evolution
>>>
>>> That's fantastic, it's about time. If only more religious leaders would
>>> follow his example it would go a long way toward reducing widespread
>>> ignorance and distrust of perfectly sound science.
>>
>> and reducing the widespread ignorance of theology...
>
>Please expound.
i'll repeat this as a starting point
Etienne Gilson [1884 - 1978], Being and Some Philosophers, p. 52
Religion has its own work, which is to educate people who are too dull
to understand philosophy, or too untutored to be amenable to its
teaching. This is why religion is necessary, for what it preaches is
fundamentally the same as what philosophy teaches, and, unless common
men believed what it preaches, they would behave like beasts. But
theologians should preach, not teach, just as philosophers should
teach, not preach. Theologians should not attempt to demonstrate,
because they cannot do it, and philosophers must be careful not to get
belief mixed up with what they prove, because then they can no longer
prove anything. Now, to preach creation is just a handy way to make
people feel that God is their Master, which is true even though, as is
well known by those who truly philosophize, nothing of the sort ever
happened.
this could allow you in deeper:-
http://www.abelard.org/abelard/abel-hi.htm#heresies-ab
>>> Now to borrow a page from your playbook so that you can see how your own
>>> medicine tastes: when is the Pope going to figure out that condom use is
>>> an effective method of preventing the spread of STDs -- particularly the
>>> spread of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa?
>>
>> benedict has recently made comments on condoms that suggest
>> he has a very good grasp of the problems arising...
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804398
>
>I saw that news when it first broke. It told me that he either really
>doesn't get it, or is unwilling to let on that he does. My money is on
>the latter.
mine too
anyone with intelligence can easily extend his *chosen* case
meanwhile the lowest birth rates are in italy and spain....
many priests all over the world tend to wink at parishioners...
but we don't want the church of england leftist popularism do we :-)
>> i would warn you that almost all commentators in the fossil media
>> on the meanings of the pope's words are very far from competent
>
>That seems to be a function of how the media operates these days. I
>gave up on television news a long time ago as it is now little more than
>entertainment and opinion masquerading as reporting, and print media is
>suffering from the pressure of very short news cycles due to the
>increasingly on demand nature of the Internet.
ok
>As an aside, science fiction writer John Varley gave a fairly prescient
>treatment of the effects of this in his 1993 novel _Steel Beach_,
>wherein news was delivered in streaming fashion to portable devices
>called "pads" to the general public. The "news" organizations that
>provided this streaming content, often in audio/video but also in text,
>were called "padloids". In that environment, minutes mattered. Getting
>a scoop was the main objective, not careful reporting followed by
>in-depth analysis.
more ok
>> this pope is unusually able...and far more able than most
>> commentators, including several 20th century popes...
>> eg. he is certainly far more able than john-paul and the dull pius 12
>
>I have little perspective on this. I have largely ignored the Catholic
>Church most of my life.
again no problem...
but there is a core of considerable interest and influence
....and nothing survives 2000 years on mere superstition as the
dullards would have one believe
>> sorry for the delay, but your post was sufficiently detailed that i
>> had to attend a little rather than toss off a reply while
>> distracted...
>No worries, I trusted you would get to it when you had time.
good...
abelard
wrote:
>But not for comprehension.
indeed....it is as you claim, self-abuse
abelard
>On 1/12/2011 11:50 AM, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:45:44 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2011 11:06 AM, abelard wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:02:31 -0500, Xan Du<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's all really how you look at it. This is how I see it -- and while I
>>>>> haven't read a ton of history, I have a pretty good idea that you can
>>>>> pretty much talk all the shit you want about saint or sinner if you read
>>>>> enough of it.
>>>>
>>>> this should interest you
>>>> http://www.abelard.org/hitler2.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> meanwhile, if you wrote that lot yourself, i'd rather like
>>>> to reprint it under your name for my site....
>>>
>>> I wrote it myself, but it's a summary of of Wikipedia's summary without
>>> much fact-checking or synthesis. There are some possible errors, plus
>>> some dots I'd like to connect before I'd be comfortable letting you have
>>> it. If you don't mind waiting a week or so, it's a research and writing
>>> exercise I wouldn't mind doing.
>>
>> i'd be delighted to have a tidied up version
>
>I'll let you know when I'm finished.
>
>> ps, i noticed in your text, 'last words'....when it was last word :-)
>
>Nuts, I'm forever misspelling "Jeru Salem".
:-)
Pink Freud
You consider reading for comprehension, self-abuse?
That explains a LOT.
abelard
wrote:
glory be you are dense...
no, reading your posts is self-abuse
attempting to read them for comprehension would be madness
>That explains a LOT.
Xan Du
> Xan Du, hang cur, hang, ye flap-ear'd knave. Ye are a callow rodent, a
>> The ying has yanged and your old pal fagsnads is yapping at my heels.
>> Same old bait too.
>
> Fagsnads is very, very funny, IMO. One of the few posters actually worth
> reading.
Well perhaps I need to be less serious, but I find it hard to riff on
his posts. I'm also still not entirely convinced he's not one of your
nyms ... it's exactly the sort of prank you'd revel in pulling off. ;)
-Xan
Brian E. Clark
@lethargic.poo.chute>,
gimpy.ji...@alt.binaries.erotica.generously.proportio
ned.knickers says...
> > The ying has yanged and your old pal fagsnads is yapping at my heels.
> > Same old bait too.
>
> Fagsnads is very, very funny, IMO. One of the few posters actually worth
> reading.
His early material was okay, but once I lost interest when
he started introducing vampires and werewolves into his
stories. To ride a trend you gotta lead a trend, and Fazzie
got into the 'creatures of the night' game waaay to late.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Xan Du
> ps, i only read uk.politics.misc....so be sure to include that in
> your communications with myself
Got it.
> if you give me a working e-mail addy i will get you a responding
> addy
You can send to the address in my headers, but alert me when you do as I
don't check that one regularly.
> i extended the circulation of this post because of its nature...
No prob.
-Xan
Kadaitcha Man
dronish presumptuous dame, a clapper-clawed horrible shadow, a
tottering degenerate, hang cur, hang, ye hag. Ye wallowed:
No. It's not me. Even though I think he's very funny, he has quite a few
raw nerves and is easily tricked into descending into personal tirades
of great depth. He strikes me as being highly intelligent and
articulate, but crazier than a bag of wet cats.
--
golden rivet : n. HMF Navy Freckle; the apple of the captain's (qv)
eye for sailors who polish the other end of the deck.
Xan Du
> Xan Du, thou hag-seed. Ye are a deformed prick-eared cur of iceland, a
> dronish presumptuous dame, a clapper-clawed horrible shadow, a
> tottering degenerate, hang cur, hang, ye hag. Ye wallowed:
>
>> On 1/12/2011 3:08 AM, Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> Xan Du, hang cur, hang, ye flap-ear'd knave. Ye are a callow rodent, a
>>
>>>> The ying has yanged and your old pal fagsnads is yapping at my heels.
>>>> Same old bait too.
>>>
>>> Fagsnads is very, very funny, IMO. One of the few posters actually worth
>>> reading.
>>
>> Well perhaps I need to be less serious, but I find it hard to riff on
>> his posts. I'm also still not entirely convinced he's not one of your
>> nyms ... it's exactly the sort of prank you'd revel in pulling off. ;)
>
> No. It's not me. Even though I think he's very funny, he has quite a few
> raw nerves and is easily tricked into descending into personal tirades
> of great depth. He strikes me as being highly intelligent and
> articulate, but crazier than a bag of wet cats.
lol, I rest my case. Tra la la ... :)
-Xan
Kadaitcha Man
Hercules could knock out thy brains for ye have none. Ye greasy-haired
crafty swearing rascal, foul spoken coward, that thund'rest with thy
tongue, and with thy weapon nothing dares perform. Ye prescribed:
lol - you cunt.
--
oil the bat : v. Polish the pork sword; lubricate the lamb canon.
Xan Du
Bite me.
-Xan
Kadaitcha Man
spur-galled death-token, thou be as good a gentleman as the devil is,
as Lucifer and Beelzebub himself. Ye dislodged:
Huh? What does your morning mail have to do with me being busy?
--
ring master : n. 1. Master of ceremonies at a circus. 2. A botter (qv).
Xan Du
-Xan
Alex W.
>
> Oh, you really ought not to say such things.
What a redundantly redundant thing to say in alt.aatheism...
;-)
>
> 1096-1099, the First Crusade, started by Pope Urban II to help the
> Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos run the Turks out of Anatolia.
> That primary goal soon became secondary as Urban turned his attention to
> recapturing Jerusalem from the Muslims, who had sacked it shortly after
> their decisive victory in the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 -- a battle that
> ended with 70 to 120,000 dead Byzantines to only 4,000 Muslims. So, you
> could argue that 460 years later, the Muslims occupying Jerusalem had it
> coming to them when the Crusaders sacked the city and killed around
> 70,000 of them with a few odd Jews mixed in as a bonus. Either way,
> that's a lot of people pushing up daisies, martyrs for their respective
> versions of the Almighty.
Don't knock it.
The conquest of Jerusalem is how my family got started!
;-)
>
> After trying 9 times, and failing, to take control over a bunch of sand
> -- whose most redeeming quality as far as I can see is that it's where
> Christ allegedly lived and died -- Christians decided it would be much
> more fun to persecute themselves for awhile. They did it with alacrity
> and reckless abandon, bringing us such joys as the Spanish Inquisition,
> the Protestant Reformation, St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, The Thirty
> Years' War, The Troubles of Northern Ireland -- ooh, but I skipped one.
To be fair, though, any such attempt to hold (as opposed to
merely conquering and probably killing some people) Jerusalem and
associated bits of sandy Holy Land was a logistical nightmare.
Muslim lands began right there, in Palestine, so this was their
home turf.
>
> On January 30, 1933, a 43 year-old Catholic became Chancellor of
> Germany. Hacked off over how the Treaty of Versailles had kept Germany
> under the thumb of France and England since the end of WWI, and
> seemingly more than a little pissed off at Jews and Muslims for simply
> having been born, Adolf Hitler began a series of political maneuvers
> after the Reichstag fire that lead to him assuming the role of President
> and Chancellor of Germany on 2 August 2, 1934. Thus began his Crusade.
A few quibbles, if you permit.
AFAIK, Hitler never had any particular animosity towards Muslims.
Nor was his hatred of Jews rooted in religion or even simple
envy: his was a fairly novel *racial* form of anti-Semitism.
This is also why so many German Jews did like frogs in the
cook-pot and sat tight while the water got ever closer to boiling
point: they were largely assimilated, had often converted and
were intensely patriotic, and above all still misunderstood this
wave of persecution as yet another religiously motivated
campaign. How to tell a practising Christian called Heinrich
with honourable frontline service during WWI that his Jewish
ancestry was suddenly all that mattered?
>
> A lot of people died.
I think at this point you'd be justified in alleging that a
"shitload" of people died.
>
> "Bullshit" you say. I know, that's not how I learned it either -- it's
> just not politically correct to call Hitler a Christian, after all, no
> True Christian would ever do such a horrible thing, right? And yet,
> there's all that history laid out up above showing us that, yes,
> Christians are just as evil as Jews, Muslims, Hindus and atheists.
> Here, have a quote to soothe your troubled soul:
It is dangerous to take a quote from an active and ambitious
politician at face value....
I'd also point out that even though there may have been nominal
freedom of and from religion, these were still the times when it
was almost unthinkable not to profess allegiance to some church
-- all the more so in a sleepy provincial Austrian town like
Linz. It would have been social and political suicide for Hitler
to declare himself a non-believer, jsut as it is to this day
quite impossible for an American President not to be overtly
Christian.
Kadaitcha Man
rascally sheep-biter. Ye puny foul-tainted flesh, ah, ye ill-begotten
horn-mad clotpole, ye were born to do thyself shame. Ye enthused:
No. Should it? Unless by mail you mean usenet...
--
dung puncher See donut puncher.