Evolution has become a state religion
Jason
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D
Abstract
It seems that atheism has become the official stance of America's school
system. One way in which many schools and teachers are attempting to
indoctrinate students is by the use of new terms to hide the actual intent
of the policy maker. For example, the current euphemism for an atheist is
a nontheist or naturalist. Even if a naturalistic explanation is not true,
scientists must still try to explain all events from this worldview.
It seems that atheism has become the official stance of America's school
system. One way in which many schools and teachers are attempting to
indoctrinate students is by the use of new terms to hide the actual intent
of the policy maker. For example, the current euphemism for an atheist is
a nontheist or naturalist. Even if a naturalistic explanation is not true,
scientists must still try to explain all events from this worldview. That
the atheistic belief structure is the norm in science was forcefully
brought out by Nobel Laureate Weinberg as follows:
Among today's scientists, I am probably somewhat atypical in caring about
such things [as God]. . . . on matters of religion, the strongest reaction
expressed by most of my fellow physicists is a mild surprise and amusement
that anyone still takes all that seriously. Many physicists maintain a
nominal affiliation with the faith of their parents . . . but few . . .
pay any attention to their nominal religion's theology.... Most physicists
today are not sufficiently interested in religion to even qualify as
practicing atheists.[1]
In Carl Sagan's words, the cosmos‹the physical universe‹"is all that is or
ever was or ever will be."[2] No Gods, angels, devils, or other spirit
creatures exist‹only that which scientists can measure with their
instruments‹which means they believe that only the visible, physical,
tangible, universe exists. Of course, these scientists have a belief
structure, which Harvard's Stephen J. Gould notes includes the conclusion
that humans are ". . . a wildly improbable evolutionary event . . ."[3]
and ". . . a cosmic accident . . ."[4] and that if the evolutionary tape
were played again and again, humans would not be expected‹even if it were
replayed a million times or more. This worldview stands in direct contrast
to the creationist's belief that humans were fashioned for a purpose. The
dominant view of naturalistic scientists is that we are only "a detail" of
history and do not exist for a purpose. [5] The only purpose of life, they
teach, is that which we arbitrarily give to it if we so choose. Gould
feels that it liberates us to give life any purpose we want which, he
believes, is not nihilistic, because it offers us "maximum freedom to
thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way."[6] The religious worldview, in
contrast, believes that some morals and values are superior to others and,
in the long run, living a moral God-fearing life is most conducive to
happiness. This conclusion has been well documented by empirical
research.[7]
Knowing that their functional atheism could hinder them from obtaining
grants or public support, scientists often skip around these conclusions
in their writing and teaching. Some, though, are open and honestly reveal
their atheism. One example is William B. Provine, professor of biological
science at Cornell. He notes that at the beginning of his class about 75%
of his students "were either creationists or believed in purposive
evolution" guided by God or a divine power. Research on his incisive,
direct, hard-hitting teaching on origins (how students often describe his
lectures) reveals that the number of creationists and those who "believed
in purposive evolution" dropped to about 50% by the end of the course.[8]
No one has hauled him into court for his openly indoctrinating students in
atheism, and indeed, scientists in general have applauded him.
Scientists generally not only support Provine's one-sided teaching but are
determined not to allow the other side in the classroom. Further,
scientific orthodoxy teaches that human existence has no God-given
purpose, but is a chance event, a blip on the radar screen in the infinity
of time. No God had any part in the creation. The authors of one of the
leading biology textbooks openly state:
Darwin compiled enough support for his theory of descent with modification
to convince most of the scientists of his day that organisms evolve
without supernatural intervention. Subsequent discoveries, including
recent ones from molecular biology, further support this great
principle‹one that connects an otherwise bewildering chaos of facts about
organisms.[9]
This view has the backing of the scientific community and the state, and
attempts by professors to discuss favorably another view, when challenged
by the university or state, have in the past proved ultimately futile.[10]
[11]
It is obvious that an attempt to censor the teaching of "the other side of
atheism" in the college classroom is nothing more than a blatant attempt
to insure that only one side of the controversy is presented. Those
professors whom the nontheistic naturalistic evolutionists believe will
influence the students in a positive direction toward theism are often
fired, censored, or "reassigned."
If naturalistic evolution is true, why do its true believers have to use
political or bullying tactics to quiet creationists (as this author knows
from personal experience)? Why do they censor evidence in favor of
creationism in textbooks, and intimidate creationist students and teachers
to accept the evolutionist party line under penalty of failure, dismissal,
or worse? The reason must be that nontheists have determined (for deeply
held philosophical reasons) that others must be taught to believe as they
do and accept only atheism or naturalism in science.
Another more important reason may be their intolerance toward
creationists. Those who criticize creationists rarely define the term. A
creationist is one who believes that God created or directed the creation
of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. [12] The core of the
opposition of universities and the state is against any theistic
worldview. The writer has yet to find, in a review of dozens of college
biology textbooks for class selection, a single one in the past decade or
more that espouses or objectively discusseseven theistic evolution in a
positive way, let alone special creation. Even the idea of progress is
anathema in biology:
If evolution is held to be progressive, then it is all too easy to see it
as being directed, following an arrow of improvement through time. And
that is all too redolent of the notion of "divine" design of pre-Darwinian
days.... "There is a profound unwillingness to abandon a view of life as
predictable progress . . . because to do so would be to admit that human
existence is nothing but a historical accident. That is difficult for many
to accept." [13]
And as Gould stresses, the very idea of progress is a "noxious" idea in
biology that must be avoided, because it hints that God exists, something
that the science establishment cannot stomach. Conversely, he views human
consciousness as a "quirky accident" that just happened. [14] No wonder
one who believes that life has a divine purpose and that a creator God
exists is so poorly tolerated and not to be trusted in the classroom. An
unbiased viewpoint forces the conclusion that America has now adopted a
state religion, supported by billions of tax dollars and enforced by the
power of law. That state religion is atheism.
Many scientists are decidedly not neutral on the topic of God. Eminent
scientist, Oxford University zoologist, and author Richard Dawkins openly
says that his best selling book, The Selfish Gene,
. . . brings home to people the truth about why they exist, something they
previously took for granted. No one had given them such a ruthless,
starkly mechanistic, almost pointless answer. "You are for nothing. You
are here to propagate your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to
life." One man said he didn't sleep for three nights after reading The
Selfish Gene. He felt that the whole of his life had become empty, and the
universe no longer had a point. Another way of putting it is of people
losing religious faith. People now felt they understood what it was all
about, where previously they had been fobbed off with religious
pseudo-answers. [15]
And as to the effect of evolution on the development of Dawkins' ideas, he
makes it clear:
It was a mind-blowing experience to discover Darwinism and realize there
were alternative explanations for all the questions with traditional
religious answers. I became irritated at the way the religious
establishment has a stranglehold over this kind of education. Most people
grow up and go through their lives without ever really understanding
Darwinism. They spend enormous amounts of time learning church teachings.
This annoys me, out of a love of truth. To me, religion is very largely an
enemy of truth. [16]
Dawkins is very open about his views‹all theism is to be condemned,
including theistic evolution. How effective has been what now amounts to a
relentless campaign to banish any support of the theistic worldview in our
public schools and colleges? Eugenie Scott, the leader of the world's
largest organization dedicated to advancing naturalism and counteracting
the work of creationists bemoaned, ". . . maybe there is something we can
do to raise our esprit de corps. . . . it's tough out here in the trenches
where 49% of American adults think man was created in his present form
10,000 years ago."[17]
While some allege that there is no conflict between theism and Darwinism,
the fact is that the majority of leading evolutionists are atheists, or at
best nontheists for whom God is irrelevant to their daily lives and their
views about the natural world and the universe.[18] In an extensive study
of scientists, Roe found in her sample of sixty-four eminent scientists
that only three were actively involved in a church and "all of the others
have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and church plays
no part in their lives...."[19]
Probably a majority of evolutionists would agree with Julian Huxley's
pronouncement that "Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the Creator
of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion." Others might go
further and accept the Dawkinsian view that the idea of a Creator is
refuted by our human inability to account for His origin. A minority might
echo Ashley Montagu's statement that "There is no incompatibility between
belief in God and the belief that evolution is the means by which all
living things have come into being." But I suspect they would, in some
cases at least, echo it with more than trace of tongue-in-cheek![20]
When one compares the pessimistic, nihilistic worldview that evolution
teaches‹that life has no purpose or reason‹with the Judeo-Christian
worldview that men and women are a special creation of a loving, caring
God who provides for them and will guide them through the trials and
travails of life, a God whose love for us is so great that He created the
universe and all of its wonders specifically for our benefit and has given
us the opportunity of everlasting life in paradise, it is obvious why most
Americans prefer the latter view. In Scott's words, "I have been saying
for years that the reason creationists can win the allegiance of some of
the general public is that all we scientists do is present evidence, but
creationists go after the heart and soul. In the words of Tom Lehrer,
'They have all of the good songs.'" [21]
References
1. [1] S. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory; The Search for the
Fundamental Laws of Nature (Pantheon Books, New York, 1992), pp. 256-257.
2. [2] C. Sagan, Cosmos (Random House, New York, 1980) p. 4.
3. [3] S. Gould, Wonderful Life; The Burgess Shale and the Nature of
History (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1989), p. 291.
4. [4] Ibid., p. 44.
5. [5] Ibid., p. 291.
6. [6] Ibid., p. 323.
7. [7] Harold Cox and Andre Hammonds, "Religiosity, Aging, and Life
Satisfaction" in Journal of Religion and Aging 5(1/2) 1-21 (1989).
8. [8] W. Provine, Creation/Evolution 32, 62-63 (1993).
9. [9] N. Campbell, L. Mitchell and J. Reece. Biology: Concepts and
Connections (Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Redwood City, CA, 1994), p.
258.
10. [10] Bishop V. Aaronov, 723 F. supp. 1562 (ND Ala 1990).
11. [11] P. Johnson, "The Creationist and the Sociobiologist: Two
Stories About Illiberal Education," California Law Review 80 (4) 1071-1090
(1992).
12. [12] P. E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Regnery Gateway, Washington,
D.C., 1991).
13. [13] R. Lewin, "A Simple Matter of Complexity" in New Scientist 141
(1994) 40.
14. [14] Ibid., p. 40.
15. [15] R. Dawkins, "Interview" in Omni 12 (4) (Jan. 1990) 60-61.
16. [16] Ibid., p. 87.
17. [17] E. Scott, "Good Songs" in Science 263 (5154) Jan. 21, 1994), 310.
18. [18] Gilson, Robert J., Evolution in a New Light: The Outworking of
Cosmic Imaginism (Pelegrin Trust, Norwich, England, 1992), 68.
19. [19] Roe, Anne, The Making of a Scientist (Dodd, Mead, and Company,
New York, 1953), 62.
20. [20] Ref. No. 18, p. 68.
21. [21] Ref. No. 17, p. 310.
*Dr. Bergman is on the science faculty at Northwest State College, Ohio.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
David
fellow physicists is a mild surprise and amusement that anyone still
takes all that seriously."
Exactly.
Jason
"David" <david....@gmail.com> wrote:
That does not surprise or shock me. If they never become Christians, it
means they will in up in hell regardless of their degrees.
I once told an atheist that if he was right that we would both died --
that would be the end our existence.
I also told if that if he was wrong, he would end up in hell and I would
end up in heaven.
I would tell your fellow physicists the same thing.
The choice is up to them.
Jason
out...@citynet.net
polling company does on religious topics. Including both social and
physical sciences about half had some belief in God. Views about
evolution is not a benchmark for being an atheist and most who profess non
religious views are not atheist but some flavor of agnostic,ie. the
atheist worldview is the minority.
What this article really says is that there is no longer explicit strong
expression of a specific religious view he holds and which he demands is
the definition to be used as to measuring state supported behavior. What
it in fact reflects is we are more religion neutral in our common lives as
regards the state. We no longer demand that children pray on command and
that the content of the prayer be determined by an agent of the state and
that religious instruction is no longer same. It means that public
schools are no longer the place to assert and affirm one specific slice of
religious views on the part of the state and such sources are left to
parents and places of worship, where the state is equally neutral. Long
live the constitution.
out...@citynet.net
means they will in up in hell regardless of their degrees.
I once told an atheist that if he was right that we would both died --
that would be the end our existence.
I also told if that if he was wrong, he would end up in hell and I would
end up in heaven.
I would tell your fellow physicists the same thing.
The choice is up to them."
It is better to see you openly proselytizing then the stealth mode over
laid by a boor veneer of poorly understood science. The "thou shall not
judge" was specifically regarding the spiritual status of another, or do
you dare claim knowledge of God's mind on His will and intentions? In
fact, what if He finds the atheist the more eligible for what ever reason
He decides and you not? You have faith in a particular tradition of use
of
and interpretation of scripture that is common within a sub group of a sub
group of a specific religion, a tradition of teaching invented by man, as
all such traditions are by definition. Shall we let God be God and let
each make their faith based on the revelation they accept?
iftik...@gmail.com
atheism. Nothing wrong with any religion including atheism as long as
it is not imposed on others. For that reason religion must be kept out
of schools especially christanity because not every one is a christian
in this country. We have already seen what Islamic madrasas (religious
schools) are accused of teaching because all religions including
christianity teach nothing but extremism and intolerance of other
peoples beliefs. Therefore, Keep religion out of our schools. It is an
outdated concept. Also remember that it is a life-extension forum and
not a religius forum.
Jason
iftik...@gmail.com wrote:
> In this country we have many religins and their followers including
> atheism. Nothing wrong with any religion including atheism as long as
> it is not imposed on others. For that reason religion must be kept out
> of schools especially christanity because not every one is a christian
> in this country. We have already seen what Islamic madrasas (religious
> schools) are accused of teaching because all religions including
> christianity teach nothing but extremism and intolerance of other
> peoples beliefs. Therefore, Keep religion out of our schools. It is an
> outdated concept. Also remember that it is a life-extension forum and
> not a religius forum.
You made some great points. If ID is related to the Christian religion
than Evolution is related to the religion of atheism. Lets not allow
either of the religions to be taught in the public school system or lets
allow both of them to be taught.
Jason
out...@citynet.net wrote:
Great post. That's the reason that those people in the ID movement did not
mention any info. about any religion or God in their text book. The judge
will probably still not allow ID to be taught in the public school system.
Every atheist I have ever met believes in evolution. Therefore, since
evolution and the religion of atheism are connected, the judge should stop
allowing evolution to the taught in the public school system. Do you
agree?
Doug Brooks
> I once told an atheist that if he was right that we would both died --
> that would be the end our existence.
> I also told if that if he was wrong, he would end up in hell and I would
> end up in heaven.
This is of course Pascal's wager. The downside, to me, is that one must
waste one's entire life, the only life that we know for sure that we
have, bowing down unwillingly to a capricious god whose morals I do not
agree with (the slaughter of children by Jehu, etc.).
It also presumes that these are the only choices, that they are black
and white, that there is just the one god, that god isn't lying or
tricking you (for example, perhaps it's all a scheme to separate out
those with good skeptical scientific minds, and torture all the rest),
that god has not predetermined the outcome, and that there are no other
uber-gods or as yet unknown gods with yet other rules.
Katt
news:1130547550....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> In this country we have many religins and their followers including
> atheism.
Atheism isn't a religion.
> Nothing wrong with any religion including atheism as long as
> it is not imposed on others.
Atheism still isn't a religion. Stop lying about it.
Katt.
Jason
<do...@want.spam.com> wrote:
Every person has free will and can choose to be a Christian, join another
religion or become a atheist. However, if there really is a heaven and
hell--and you have made the wrong chose--that means you will go to hell.
You will have no one to blame but yourself if you make the wrong decision.
If Christians are wrong and there is no hell or heaven--that just means we
still lived a wonderful and happy life. After we die--that will be the end
of our existence.
If Christians are right--that means we lived a wonderful life and will go
to heaven after we die. I believe that Christians made the correct choice.
Jason
<p297622...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Jason wrote:
>
> > In article <1130524079.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "David" <david....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "on matters of religion, the strongest reaction expressed by most of my
> >> fellow physicists is a mild surprise and amusement that anyone still
> >> takes all that seriously."
> >>
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >
> > That does not surprise or shock me. If they never become Christians, it
> > means they will in up in hell regardless of their degrees.
>
> A god that condemns billions of people to hell for all eternity; the most
> evil of men couldn't produce such negative results. A god that isn't
> capable of providing eternal life for all his children is weak, weak, weak,
> and worse that imaginary.
>
> > I once told an atheist that if he was right that we would both died --
> > that would be the end our existence.
>
> Different religious beliefs have different assertions about death - there is
> no rational reason why yours is any better than any other. Neo will set
> you right when you start your next game of life. :-)
>
> > I also told if that if he was wrong, he would end up in hell and I would
> > end up in heaven.
>
> Or the other way around.
>
> > I would tell your fellow physicists the same thing.
> > The choice is up to them.
> > Jason
>
> Fear tactics, that's ultimately all that the 100s of Christian religions
> have to offer, "Do what we tell you or you will go to hell!".
>
> Now, as to life extension, what pragmatic steps have you taken that any
> person regardless of religious beliefs can take?
I go to my doctor about once every three months. I have read several books
written by alternative doctors. I take lots of vit., minerals and herbs
each day. I spend about 30 minutes each day working out in a health fitness
center. John 3:16 is the reason that I stated certain things in my post.
If you don't have a Bible--repost and I'll write the scripture. It's
states in the scripture that a person must believe in Jesus before you can
be saved.
Jason
<p297622...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> False conclusion. Send your children to private schools where you can have
> them indoctinated any way you want and can teach them to expect death and
> to be judged.
>
> In the here and now, a focus on "REAL" science to extend mean life span is
> producing more fruit.
I think that all Christian parents should send their children to Christian
schools where they can learn about evolution and Intelligent Design.
I only wish that Christians could continue to send their children to
public schools like they done from 1776 to 1976. However, the public
schools have
been going down hill (the wrong direction) since 1976. I recently saw some
statistics indicating that children from about a dozen other countries
know much more about math and sciece than American children. How sad.
Jason
George Cherry
"Jason" <ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-29100...@pm4-broad-6.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
Yawn.
iftik...@gmail.com
atheism very strongly defend their belief, call it their narrow
mindedness or enlightment, it is no different than the passion people
expresses in their religious beliefs such as christianity. I separated
all beliefs including atheism. Looks like you are a narrow minded
person incapable of understanding intelligent arguments. Calling people
liars without provocation shows that you need to grow up.
out...@citynet.net
Christian
schools where they can learn about evolution and Intelligent Design. I
only
wish that Christians could continue to send their children to public
schools like they done from 1776 to 1976. However, the public schools have
been going down hill (the wrong direction) since 1976. I recently saw some
statistics indicating that children from about a dozen other countries
know
A couple of things, the largest christian school system, catholic, teach
evolution in science classes, they say God is the why and evolution the
how.
1976 is the date of what? Because id is clearly a religious notion in
origin and intention by those pushing it it is best taught at home and
religious places of worship, both of which are "schools" long before the
child enters formal education. What you regret is that the state in its
agent of schools doesn't affirm only the specific religious teaching of
one
group.
Need one point out that those other countries with the better education
teach evolution without exception, and while it is not the cause, the
increased flap over cs and id have grown in the same time period that
science education here declined.
out...@citynet.net
books written by alternative doctors. I take lots of vit., minerals and
herbs each day. I spend about 30 minutes each day working out in a health
fitness center."
I would guess diabetes based on inferences implied in those actions. I
have noted an interesting correlation between fundamentalist christians
and acceptance of "alternative medicine". In both there is a strong
"anti" rebellious acceptance of sources of authority in which both
originate. Considering the reason for the ng, this is a much more relevant
topic then resurrecting the dead cs notions which life extension is in
grave doubt.
"John 3:16 is the reason that I stated certain things in my post. If you
don't have a Bible--repost and I'll write the scripture. It's states in
the scripture that a person must believe in Jesus before you can be
saved."
Not even close, it says "whosoever will etc." the scriptures used more
often to say what you suggest are found elsewhere. Accepting those first
then only makes sense of the Jon verse which doesn't make an absolute
statement of exclusion only who among logically possible others could also
be included. It is verses like this that motivated the universalists to
conclude that salvation will be open to all based on Christ's
resurrection. It would be a mistake to assume you are the only
knowledgeable one in such matters just as you made the mistake of assuming
people didn't know about cs..
out...@citynet.net
religion or become a atheist. However, if there really is a heaven and
hell--and you have made the wrong chose--that means you will go to hell."
Can you spot the huge logical flaw in the above?
Jason
iftik...@gmail.com wrote:
> Atheism is also a belief in non-existance of God and all beleivers in
> atheism very strongly defend their belief, call it their narrow
> mindedness or enlightment, it is no different than the passion people
> expresses in their religious beliefs such as christianity. I separated
> all beliefs including atheism. Looks like you are a narrow minded
> person incapable of understanding intelligent arguments. Calling people
> liars without provocation shows that you need to grow up.
I guess it depended on how you define religion:
If you define it as a "belief"--than atheism is a religion.
If you define it as a belief in God--it's not a religion.
Jason
out...@citynet.net wrote:
I don't assume that I know more than other Christians. I believe that we
need to study all of the scriptures. If you have done that you would know
that the Bible clearly teaches that we much believe in Christ to be saved.
If God wants to let non-Christians into heaven--that's alright with me.
Someone mentioned how this subject is related to life extension.
If people want their lives to be extended--becoming a Chistian and going
to heaven after we die is the best option we have to extend our lives.
I would much prefer to extend my life in heaven than to extend my life in hell.
Therefore, this thread is related to life extension.
out...@citynet.net
the religion of atheism. Lets not allow either of the religions to be
taught in the public school system or lets allow both of them to be
taught."
Please, stop insulting our intelligences with such sophomoric logic.
Evolution as taught doesn't refer to any religious idea in the least.
What you mean is that your religious ideas,ie. id, are not explicitly
affirmed in school. That is very different then the absence of a deity
not so asserted. Evolution says nothing about religion that is not
imposed upon it by either those who says it teaches against or those who
say it teaches for a God. Neither view is allowed in school. As you
confess, id is not scientific and by definition is no part of a science
course.
out...@citynet.net
need to study all of the scriptures. If you have done that you would know
that the Bible clearly teaches that we much believe in Christ to be
saved."
Do you read at all what people write, that was my point that the verse you
mentioned didn't say what you claim, it is others.
"If God wants to let non-Christians into heaven--that's alright with me."
How big of you, which is why it is presumptive for you to make sstatements
to others about them going to hell, it is not your's to judge and are told
not to do so.
":Someone mentioned how this subject is related to life extension.
If people want their lives to be extended--becoming a Chistian and going
to heaven after we die is the best option we have to extend our lives.
I would much prefer to extend my life in heaven than to extend my life in
hell.
Therefore, this thread is related to life extension."
Once more, what is the huge flaw in logic the above contains?
Jason
out...@citynet.net wrote:
I know of at least two people that would disagree with you. Both of them
have Ph.D degrees. They both believe that Evolution is a religion. I just
received the latest edition of the Institute for Creation newsletter.
There is an article in the newsletter entitled, "Has Evolution Become a
State Religion" by John D. Morris, Ph.D. I may post the article once it
appears on the icr.org website. Dr. Morris explains in his article that
evolution is a belief system that has become a religion. This is a quote
from the article:
"Scientists have redefined the goal of science. No longer is it the search
for truth, it has become the search fro naturalistic explanations... The
state-supported church of athesistic evolution has been almost fully
established in this once Christian country. I, for one, support the
disestablishment of this false, unscientific and harmful CHURCH."
I agree with Dr. Morris. Do you agree or disagree with Dr. Morris.
Jason
out...@citynet.net
have Ph.D degrees. They both believe that Evolution is a religion. I just
received the latest edition of the Institute for Creation newsletter.
There is an article in the newsletter entitled, "Has Evolution Become a
State Religion" by John D. Morris, Ph.D. I may post the article once it
appears on the icr.org website. Dr. Morris explains in his article that
evolution is a belief system that has become a religion. This is a quote
from the article: "Scientists have redefined the goal of science. No
longer is it the search for truth, it has become the search fro
naturalistic explanations... The state-supported church of athesistic
evolution has been almost fully established in this once Christian
country. I, for one, support the disestablishment of this false,
unscientific and harmful CHURCH." I agree with Dr. Morris. Do you agree or
disagree with Dr. Morris."
Disagree, I know of at least two people without degrees who say different,
truth is not a nose count. The snip you have contains no science, it is
clearly full of religion. Science except as individuals might use it has
never been anything but naturalistic. Science can only note
correspondences between ideas and observed phenomena. No science is
possible by definition by evoking supernatural, which means outside of
natural, matters. The snip is full of rhetorical flourishes to rouse the
troops, and you send them the money they require to provide the show and
apparently feel you get your entertainment dollar's worth.
Jason
out...@citynet.net wrote:
My memory is not as good as is once was but I seem to recall a supreme
court case that ruled that "securlar humanism" is a religion. You may want
to do a google search if you don't remember the case. As you know, those
people that believe in securlar humanism don't attend church and don't
believe in God. However, securlar humanism is a well established "belief
system".
If securlar humanism is a religion, then "evolution" is a religion since
it is a well established belief system. Believe it or not, I know one
local professor that believes that evolution is an established fact. He
once wrote regular letters to editor that were published in the local
newspaper. He was more devoted to evolution than most Christians are
devoted to Christianity. I wrote several letters to the editor that made
him look like a fool so he stopped writing letters to the editor.
iftik...@gmail.com
is considered a religion. In my opinion, if one believes in a
particular belief passionately, than he is religious and has a religion
based on that belief which, like Budhism can be Atheism without a
concept of God. Budhism proves that God is not a central concept to
religion and there are also other religions which also do not preach
believing in a God.
Jason
iftik...@gmail.com wrote:
> In Budhism, Like Atheism, there is no room for a belief in a God yet it
> is considered a religion. In my opinion, if one believes in a
> particular belief passionately, than he is religious and has a religion
> based on that belief which, like Budhism can be Atheism without a
> concept of God. Budhism proves that God is not a central concept to
> religion and there are also other religions which also do not preach
> believing in a God.
Hello,
Great post. I had forgotten that those people that believe in Budhism do
not believe in God. Sence evolution is a well establised belief--do you
believe that it's also a religion. John D. Morris, Ph.D believes that
evolution is a religion. I agree with him. It was clear to me from various
posts that some of the people in this newsgroup have more faith in
evolution than many Christians have for Christianity. During some
Sundays--less than half of the church members attend Church.
Jason
Jason
"Henry" <sm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > a person must believe in Jesus before you can be saved
>
> >From what you say this Jesus guy sounds like a very insecure
> egotistical jerk.
> I certainly wouldn't want to have anything to do with someone like that.
That's your choice. If you would prefer to spend eternity in hell instead
of in heaven, you have made the correct choice.
Heaven is the ultimate life-extension.
Jason
"Henry" <sm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That's your choice. If you would prefer to spend eternity in hell instead
> > of in heaven, you have made the correct choice.
>
> Sometimes you just have to make a stand, behave in a moral way and
> oppose a brutal dictator, even if there's a chance of suffering for it.
> Someone who is planning to torture Ghandi, Anne Frank, and Albert
> Einstein for eternity is obviously not deserving of any support.
> If you had any courage or sense of morality at all you'd be working to
> overthrow this evil fascist. It's cowards like you who allowed
> dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein to come to power
> because they were too scared of suffering punishment to oppose them.
> Remember, might does not equal right.
I have stated in another post that God is omnipotent (all powerful) and
can allow anyone to come into heaven. For example, the Bible makes it
clear that those people (non-Christians) that have never been exposed to
the gospel (Bible) and the plan of salvation can be saved and allowed to
come into heaven. There may be other exceptions not mentioned in the
Bible. That means that God may allow Ghandi, Anne Frank, Albert Einstein
(and other wonderful people) into heaven. That's up to God. However, the
Bible also makes it clear that Christians will go to heaven. The best way
to get to heaven is by becoming a Christian.
If you wish to have your life extended, become a Christian and go to heaven
after you die.
Jason
fredf...@spamcop.net
Jason wrote:
>
> ...
> I have stated in another post that God is omnipotent (all powerful) ...
But are there no limits on God's power? Is there any limit to what
God can create?
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
Odd, the Buddists I know tell me that Buddism is compatible with
a belief in God, indeed, with very nearly any other religious belief.
For example, I recall a poll being taken in Japan at which time
90% of Japanese were Shinto, and 80% Budhist.
I have a friend whose father was Catholic and Budhist. Some
Catholic clergy might have a problem with that but the Budhists
did not.
--
FF
out...@citynet.net
court case that ruled that "securlar humanism" is a religion. You may want
to do a google search if you don't remember the case."
No, a kind of urban myth, it was a footnote in one judge's decision making
an analogy, it was not the decision of the court nor any part of the
ruling of the other 8.
"As you know, those people that believe in securlar humanism don't attend
church and don't believe in God."
Many unitarian/universalists would beg to differ with you.
"However, securlar humanism is a well
established "belief system". If securlar humanism is a religion, then
"evolution" is a religion since it is a well established belief system.
As silly leap in logic as could be found. There are many well held belief
systems, such as capitalism and animal rights and people who say you should
eat mostly meat and thousands, none are by any stretch a religion. The
distinction evolution has is that is well based in science which doesn't
rely on faith/belief but how well ideas accord with observations.
"He once wrote regular letters to editor that were published in the local
newspaper. He was more devoted to evolution than most Christians are
devoted to Christianity. I wrote several letters to the editor that made
him look like a fool so he stopped writing letters to the editor."
Based on the quality of what you have written here, another urban myth or
self delusion, you have been trounced at every point. In fact you have been
made to retreat from some ideas you held at first.
iftik...@gmail.com
things. In Budhism there is no punishment or reward from God but
reward/punishment only comes through one's own efforts to attain an
eternal bliss. It has nothing to do with an all encompasing mighty God
and he plays no such role in the lives of Budhists. In Christianity
Christ is God but in Budhism Budha is not God. In Islam their is even
stricter defenition of one God than chistianity and Mohammad is
considered a human being. My point being that God and it's reach to the
humanity varies from religion to religion but no such thing exists in
Budhism, not even Budha himself. As far as evolution is considered,
like any other belief, if you defend it vigourasly without being able
to understand the real working of life forces behind it, can be
considered a religious belief. We know cells, but what makes them tick,
no body knows yet so evolutionary thoughts are more of a conjucture
than truth with some fragmentary support. Till we are able to create a
simple insect level complex organism, we are all in the dark.
Jason
out...@citynet.net wrote:
I'll agree with your last point. The facts are that I did write a letter
to the editor to refute the letter to the editor that the professor wrote.
He never wrote any more letters to the editor after my letter was
published. It's merely my opinion that I made a fool of him which is the
reason I believe he stopped his practice of writing letters to the editor
related to evolution. It's possible that he had other reasons for not
writing more letters to the editor. For example, he may have started to
write a book so he lost interest or did not have enough time to continue
to write letters to the editor. However, it's also possible that he did
not write any other letters due to the fact that I may have refuted any
other letters that he wrote. I should note that I know of at least two
people that have Ph.D degrees that agree that evolution has now become a
religion. I read what they have written on this subject and I agree with
them. I'm sure there reasons are better than my reasons. You made some
excellent points that make sense. I'll have to come up with some better
reasons.
Jason
out...@citynet.net
that agree that evolution has now become a religion."
I know of of least two people who don't have degrees and who say it is
not.
Jason
out...@citynet.net wrote:
Great point. I only made the point because someone implied that I was the
only person in the world that believed that evolution has become a
religion. My point was that other (well educated) people have the same
opinion.
Evojeesus
> I only made the point because someone implied that I was the
> only person in the world that believed that evolution has become a
> religion. My point was that other (well educated) people have the same
> opinion.
That does not mean a thing. There are shelf-kilometres of scientific
papers about evolution in the libraries, which proves it's a science.
Creationism is a religion, as the lack of papers, results and theories
proves.
What has creationism contributed to the body of scientific knowledge
during the past 150 years?
Katt
news:1130604306....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Atheism is also a belief in non-existance of God
Nope. Stop lying about atheists.
> and all beleivers in
> atheism very strongly defend their belief, call it their narrow
> mindedness or enlightment, it is no different than the passion people
> expresses in their religious beliefs such as christianity.
I see: you now think you speak for all atheists as well as all Christians.
Fascinating symptom.
> I separated
> all beliefs including atheism. Looks like you are a narrow minded
> person incapable of understanding intelligent arguments. Calling people
> liars without provocation shows that you need to grow up.
You are still lying about atheism. Atheists don't have 'a belief in [the]
non-existance [sic] of God [sic]': the very *notion* of that specific
god-fantasy - one of countless thousands of such fantasies, all of them
completely without evidential support - *simply has no meaning* outside of
the (in your tradition's case) Biblical belief system. Furthermore,
'strength of conviction' or 'passion' are not in any sense proof of
'religion'; and rational belief founded on an evidential basis is NOT the
same as proudly and determinedly counter-factual 'religious faith'. So I
repeat: *Atheism is not a religion*.
God-deluded people and their appeasers continually try to bring these silly
superstitions before non-believers -- and these non-believers respond by
saying (i) that there is not the slightest evidence for any of the thousands
of different god-fantasies that have swarmed and multiplied in the darkness
of the primitive mind; and (ii) that an overwhelming mass of modern human
knowledge makes the existence of every one of these 'gods' completely
implausible, even where the actual claims of a given 'religion' aren't
ridiculous on strictly logical grounds. Atheism is as much a 'religion' as
*your rational and principled and determined refusal to believe in the
Easter Bunny* is 'a religion'. Atheism is merely *a position adopted with
regard to a religious issue*. And if you can't see the difference between
those two things, then you are pitiful as well as despicable.
Katt.
Accidental
Katt wrote:
> You are still lying about atheism. Atheists don't have 'a belief in [the]
> non-existance [sic] of God [sic]': the very *notion* of that specific
> god-fantasy - one of countless thousands of such fantasies, all of them
> completely without evidential support - *simply has no meaning* outside of
> the (in your tradition's case) Biblical belief system. Furthermore,
> 'strength of conviction' or 'passion' are not in any sense proof of
> 'religion'; and rational belief founded on an evidential basis is NOT the
> same as proudly and determinedly counter-factual 'religious faith'. So I
> repeat: *Atheism is not a religion*.
>
> God-deluded people and their appeasers continually try to bring these silly
> superstitions before non-believers -- and these non-believers respond by
> saying (i) that there is not the slightest evidence for any of the thousands
> of different god-fantasies that have swarmed and multiplied in the darkness
> of the primitive mind; and (ii) that an overwhelming mass of modern human
> knowledge makes the existence of every one of these 'gods' completely
> implausible, even where the actual claims of a given 'religion' aren't
> ridiculous on strictly logical grounds. Atheism is as much a 'religion' as
> *your rational and principled and determined refusal to believe in the
> Easter Bunny* is 'a religion'. Atheism is merely *a position adopted with
> regard to a religious issue*. And if you can't see the difference between
> those two things, then you are pitiful as well as despicable.
>
> Katt.
Katt: Theists don't have faith in The Dictionary.
Allow me to read some scripture from it:
religion: n. 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that
control human destiny; 2: institution to express belief *in* a divine
power.
Hmmm... atheists don't believe in gods... religion requires belief in
the supernatural or divine... hmmm...
I have determined it! Atheism is NOT a religion! Theists are
generally stupid!
All hail! For The Dictionary is the way, the truth, and the light.
Believe in it and ye shall not perish.
iftik...@gmail.com
* A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.
My point precisely. A passionate belief. As I mentioned earlier, if you
are not pasionate about it, you are not religious but if you believe
passionately, like Katt, then you are religious about it and your
belief is your religion. I proved my point through your choice of
reasoning via dictionary. Since this a life extension forum, I will not
respond any further to this forum.
Jason
"Evojeesus" <evoj...@mailinator.com> wrote:
Hello,
I only know what has been happening for the past 15 to 20 years related to
the evolution vs creation science debate. According to information that
was printed in the Institute For Creation Research newsletter, they have
written various scientific papers. They claim that the process of getting
such papers published in scientific papers is controlled by hard core
evolutionists. As a result, their scientific papers are NOT published in
those journals. I do not speak for ICR but am merely telling you my
impression of what I have read in their newsletters.
Jason
Jason
<ka...@t.com> wrote:
Katt,
I don't speak for Atheists or all Christians. I speak for myself.
We have different opinions on this subject.
Jason
"Accidental" <Philip....@gmail.com> wrote:
Nice try--but you failed. You failed to include all of the various definitions.
Here's one of them that you did NOT include:
religion--a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
I should note that at least one supreme court judge mentioned in one of
the court documents related to a case stated that "secular humanism" is a
religion. I should note that secular humanists don't believe in God.
Katt
news:1130765608.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Another defenition of religion from Dictionary.com, Check that out:
> * A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
> devotion.
>
> My point precisely. A passionate belief. As I mentioned earlier, if you
> are not pasionate about it, you are not religious but if you believe
> passionately, like Katt, then you are religious about it and your
> belief is your religion.
> I proved my point through your choice of
> reasoning via dictionary.
You really *are* this fucking stupid, aren't you? Not only do you now think
a dictionary is the place to decide philosophy, but you are also so totally
inept at understanding email attributions that you actually think it was
*me* who 'chose' to bring dictionaries into it?!? Look, sonny, you are
punching *waaaay* above your weight here. Just *piss off home*, before I
squeeze all your zits.
Katt.
Evojeesus
> In article <1130744600.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Evojeesus" <evoj...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > What has creationism contributed to the body of scientific knowledge
> > during the past 150 years?
> I only know what has been happening for the past 15 to 20 years related to
> the evolution vs creation science debate. According to information that
> was printed in the Institute For Creation Research newsletter, they have
> written various scientific papers.
So what? What have they found out? Where are the new facts and what
they are? I recommend that you find those out
> They claim that the process of getting
> such papers published in scientific papers is controlled by hard core
> evolutionists.
If they claim that, they lie. Evolution has nothing to do with
paleontology, geology, glaciology, arkeology, paleoclimatology,
astronomy, radioactive dating etc. If creationist worldview is not
reconciliable with these mature scientific fields, it's just plain
wrong.
Jason
"Evojeesus" <evoj...@mailinator.com> wrote:
Hello,
I have been a dues paying member of the Institute for Creation Research
for at least 5 or more years. I receive an ICR newslette every month. Each
newsletter has a detailed report related to their research efforts. They
even include special reports that are usually written by scientists that
have Ph.D degrees.
If you visit the icr.org website, you can use their search engine to
locate many of those reports. If you want to learn more about creation
science, read one of these books:
"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr. Duane Gish
"Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by M. Denton
"The Lie: Evolution" by K. Ham
You should make up your own mind about the authors instead of believing
what hard core evolutionists have said about them on their websites.
Denis Loubet
"Jason" <ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-31100...@pm4-broad-4.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
And, of course, there is no atheist "system of beliefs", and no "atheist
faith", so clearly atheism does not fit that definition either.
"I don't believe you" is not a system of belief or a faith.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
iftik...@gmail.com
is.
Looks like your mother did not teach you manners, let alone philosphy.
Let me teach you some.When you call people liars, be carefull you might
get hurt. Your passionate response proves again to all that you
religiously believe in your religion which you call Atheism without
truely understanding what it is. You are just a copy cat incapable of
thinking outside the box. Stick with your religion and do not act smart
if you can not handle it.
out...@citynet.net
in the world that believed that evolution has become a religion. My point
was that other (well educated) people have the same opinion."
This is the source of much of your trouble, the mixing of science and
opinion. The weakest kind of argument is appeal to authority. Also
opinion is different then a thesis which can be made into a science
statement and research done using it. Id and most of cs are examples,
they fail not because they lack people holding opinions in their support
but because they aren't a thesis based notion that can be made a
scientific propisition. As said before, all the opinions one might want
can be found at the corner tavern any night of the week.
Katt
news:1130778235....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Atheism isn't a religion. Stop lying.
And *learn to fucking spell*.
Katt.
Google knows your thoughts
Pramesh Rutajit wrote:
> Jason wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Great post. I had forgotten that those people that believe in Budhism do
> > not believe in God. Sence evolution is a well establised belief--
>
> I see that you still cannot tell the difference between science and
> mythology.
Well, what is it?
Evojeesus
What are the results? Are there any? I'm asking you to find that out,
for your sake. If you - a vocal proponent of creationismm - cannot
mention even a single scientific fact or result of creationist
research, creationism is in very deep trouble.
> You should make up your own mind about the authors instead of believing
> what hard core evolutionists have said about them on their websites.
So should you. A great starting point is to find out what they have
achieved. So, where are the results of creationist research? Can you
mention any technologies based on creationism?
fredf...@spamcop.net
Pramesh Rutajit wrote:
> fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
>
> >
> > Jason wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> I have stated in another post that God is omnipotent (all powerful) ...
> >
> > But are there no limits on God's power? Is there any limit to what
> > God can create?
> >
>
> If there were no limits, a Pagan style atonement wouldn't have been
> necessary. An omnipotent god wouldn't have needed to engage in self
> sacrafice and self suffereing to justify saving anyone. An all powerful
> god could just say "Ok, everyone's is saved." The christian god has lots of
> limits.
>
I beg to differ. That the Christian God chose to be born, suffer and
die does not imply that it was necessary.
However, I am still interested if Jason should chose to answer
the questions:
Are there no limits on God's power? Is there any limit to what
God can create?
--
FF
Jason
"Evojeesus" <evoj...@mailinator.com> wrote:
RATE. If you want to learn more about RATE, visit the icr.org site and
type RATE into their search engine.
Jason
out...@citynet.net wrote:
I have stated in various posts that I have read
"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Duane Gish
The book clearly explains "facts" that prove that creation
science has more validity than macro-evolution.
If you merely wanted to make a point, you have succeeded.
However, if you truly want to understand why the advocates
of creation science support it--you need to read the book.
Even if you don't agree with Dr. Gish, at least you will
understand that we do have "facts" that prove that creation
science does has validity and is a theory.
Jason
Jason
<p297622...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Jason wrote:
>
> > In article <1130698493.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Henry" <sm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > That's your choice. If you would prefer to spend eternity in hell
> >> > instead of in heaven, you have made the correct choice.
> >>
> >> Sometimes you just have to make a stand, behave in a moral way and
> >> oppose a brutal dictator, even if there's a chance of suffering for it.
> >> Someone who is planning to torture Ghandi, Anne Frank, and Albert
> >> Einstein for eternity is obviously not deserving of any support.
> >> If you had any courage or sense of morality at all you'd be working to
> >> overthrow this evil fascist. It's cowards like you who allowed
> >> dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein to come to power
> >> because they were too scared of suffering punishment to oppose them.
> >> Remember, might does not equal right.
> >
> > I have stated in another post that God is omnipotent (all powerful) and
> > can allow anyone to come into heaven. For example, the Bible makes it
> > clear that those people (non-Christians) that have never been exposed to
> > the gospel (Bible) and the plan of salvation can be saved and allowed to
> > come into heaven.
>
> You sound like you're tuning into a Christian Mormon - the primary group
> that believes in salvation for all since they believe that everyone, either
> in this life or the next, will have the opportunity to accept Jesus.
>
> > There may be other exceptions not mentioned in the
> > Bible. That means that God may allow Ghandi, Anne Frank, Albert Einstein
> > (and other wonderful people) into heaven. That's up to God.
>
> So god can do whatever evil he wants and it's ok with you? An
> omnibenevolent(all good) omnipotent(all powerful) omniscient(all knowing)
> god that created evil is a contradiction in terms.
>
> > However, the
> > Bible also makes it clear that Christians will go to heaven. The best way
> > to get to heaven is by becoming a Christian.
>
> The bible is a work of mythology - one can believe in other mythology and
> get to the heavens they discuss as well - at least that is what each group
> thinks.
>
> > If you wish to have your life extended, become a Christian and go to
> > heaven after you die.
>
> How about we create our own heaven without all the evil that God created?
> I'm reasonably certain that we ultimately can improve on what we have and
> do a better job. Doing the singing and praising dance for all eternity is
> Hell and I would like to do something more creative and rewarding.
If you want to spend eternity in hell--that is your choice.
I would prefer to spend eternity in heaven.
Jason
<p297622...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
>
> >
> > Jason wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> I have stated in another post that God is omnipotent (all powerful) ...
> >
> > But are there no limits on God's power? Is there any limit to what
> > God can create?
> >
>
> If there were no limits, a Pagan style atonement wouldn't have been
> necessary. An omnipotent god wouldn't have needed to engage in self
> sacrafice and self suffereing to justify saving anyone. An all powerful
> god could just say "Ok, everyone's is saved." The christian god has lots of
> limits.
Great point. God has set up rules (eg 10 commandments) for mankind. I
believe that God has established rules for his son, angels and himself.
God would never violate those rules. God (of course) could violate those
rules--but he would not do it. Part of the rules that he established were
that blood sacrifices had to done to allow people to be forgiven for their
sins. He had to send his son Jesus to become the ultimate sacrificial
lamb--John the Baptist referred to Jesus as the Lamb of God. He knew that
Jesus was sent by God to shed his blood for our sins.
Jason
fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
I believe that there are no limits on God's power except for those limits
that he places on himself. For example, if you owned a machine gun that
could hold 100 rounds (or shells)--you could choose to kill at least a
dozen people with it or to never make use of the machine gun. You could
kill people or place limits on your power and never kill anyone. Do you
see my point?
There are no limits on God's power to create except for those limits that
he places on himself.
These are my opinions.
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
>> Nice try--but you failed. You failed to include all of the various
>> definitions.
>> Here's one of them that you did NOT include:
>> religion--a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor
>> and faith.
>
> And, of course, there is no atheist "system of beliefs", and no
> "atheist faith", so clearly atheism does not fit that definition
> either.
>
> "I don't believe you" is not a system of belief or a faith
It is to those who pre-suppose the existence of "god". To most believers,
the god is not a belief, it is as real as their big toe. To them,
posturing that "god" does not exist therefore becomes a belief that their
god does not exist. The fact that they cannot provide evidence for the
existence of their god, of course, means nothing to them.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
"The world is only 5-6 thousand years old does not mean the planet
earth is only 5-6 thousand years old. There have been many worlds
created and destroyed on this planet. The creation of the planet is
described in Genesis 1. The creation of the world is described in
Genesis 2. Two different kind of creations." --Eric Brze
out...@citynet.net
time I remind you that I have read the gish book, and it is still lousy
science and full of half baked ideas and spin of his creation by misuse of
the research of others. As reminding now for the multiple time, he is not
to betrusted because he has been caught lying and not fessing up to it and
for other immoral and unprofessional behavior. That you continue to sell
him says what about your complicity in his sins? You will not read in
detail the documented evidence of his mis deeds. Again, on what basis can
you evaluate his ability to "prove" anything, having confessed again and
again your absense of basic knowledge of science and the evidence related
to evolution in particular?
Uncle Vic
> I was not going to respond to it but since you asked for it, here it
For the last time, Meathead, atheism is the lack of a belief system. If
you want it to be a belief system, and I can't for the life of me figure
out why you would, then you will have to come up with hard evidence that
your god thingy exists. The fact is, you morons pre-suppose the existence
of your god, without any proof or evidence of its existence. From this
standpoint you can logically conclude that atheism is a belief system, but
your standpoint itself is not logically sound. It's based on the logical
fallacy, Circulum in Demonstrando, where the premise (god exists) proves
the conclusion (god exists). You'll have to do better than that, bucko.
Unfortunately, all your bobblehead friends will side with you, for they
have no need of evidence to support their fantasy world. And it is herein
that belies our passion, as you put it, our frustration with theists.
It's a BELIEF, dumbass!
out...@citynet.net
type RATE into their search engine."
Ok, and we find:
RATE, 'Radioisotopes and the age of the earth'
Now read an analysis of the quality and validity of the RATE studies:
Jason
out...@citynet.net wrote:
What's your opinion of the RATE project? It appears that lots of people in
this newsgroup rely on hard core evolutionists to come up with opinions so
they won't have to come up with their own opinions. I respect people that
are able to think for themselves without relying on other people to think
for them.
In another post, someone refused to read "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"
by M. Denton since he found a negative book review posted in a website
that was written by a hard core evolutionists. Does anyone honestly
believe that hard core evolutionists would have positive things to say
about RATE or a anti-evolution book?
I encorage everyone to think for themselves instead of having hard core
evoltionists think for them.
Jason
iftik...@gmail.com
their belief than those who believe in God. Their belief in "non
existance of God" which they express with emotional outbursts and foul
language, fits the Classic defenition of religion and they are very
passionate about it (or dare I say very religious about it). I do not
believe in Christianity or anything similar for that matter but I am
open minded and am willing to learn and share my thoughts. It is so sad
to see that those who believe in their own intellegence lack
intelligence to come with cool intelligent arguments so that others
could also befit from their dillusions.
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
> Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic about
> their belief than those who believe in God. Their belief in "non
> existance of God"
<SLAP!>
Once again, sweetie, for this statement to stand up you will have to supply
hard evidence for the existence of your god thingy. Put up or shut up.
Evojeesus
> > "RATE. If you want to learn more about RATE, visit the icr.org site and
> > type RATE into their search engine."
> > Ok, and we find:
> > RATE, 'Radioisotopes and the age of the earth'
> > Now read an analysis of the quality and validity of the RATE studies:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
> What's your opinion of the RATE project?
In my opinion it's comleted crap. Is that all creationists have
achieved during the past 150 years? If I were you, I'd seriously
consider switching sides in this debate.
Also, it's quite lame that you come up with a "study" that claims Earth
is 6000 +/- 2000 years old. You should know that the evidence
overwhelmingly tells us that the planets in the Solar system are
several billions of years old, and these results have absolutely
nothing to do with the study of evolution or "evolutionism".
> It appears that lots of people in
> this newsgroup rely on hard core evolutionists to come up with opinions so
> they won't have to come up with their own opinions.
Science is by far the best method of finding out things about nature,
it has worked wonderfully well, as you can see by looking all the
artifacts that science-based technologies have made possible. On the
other hand, creationists
> I respect people that
> are able to think for themselves without relying on other people to think
> for them.
So why do you buy your opinions from an institute that has never
achieved anything, except sham "research" that claims earth is a few
thousands of years old? Where are your critical thinking skills now?
> I encorage everyone to think for themselves instead of having hard core
> evoltionists think for them.
The fact remains that entire scientific fields that have nothing to do
with evolution have proved that the Earth is way older than 6000 years.
It is patently impossible that a global conspiracy of "evolutionists"
falsified these results.
Robibnikoff
<iftik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130804287.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic about
> their belief than those who believe in God.
Has anyone noticed that anyone posting using a gmail email address is a
total asshole?
Yep
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist