New Atheism believes religion should be countered, criticized and exposed

[orogenicman]

All I was doing by quoting Scripture was expounding on why I accused you of engaging in blasphemy.

Blasphemy is a religious "sin". How many of your fellow Christians have "blasphemed" about Islam even though both religions worship the same God? They have "sinned" but you don't level that accusation at them. Can you explain why you only fling that accusation at atheists?

Definition of blasphemy: great disrespect shown to God or to something held sacred or holy.(emphasis on the word “great” it has to be egregious)

If it turns out that Islam is the true religion of the one true God, then I would say many of us Christians are guilty of blasphemy. In fact, I would think we could be guilty of blasphemy towards Islam, Hinduism, or others regardless if there is any validity to their religion or not. Our God would not approve of such disrespect, that much I know. So to answer your question, I do not only accuse atheists of the sin of blasphemy, however, they can be guilty of it regardless if they believe in God or not.

But then, why should anyone give a shite whether or not you believe anyone is guilty of blasphemy? Again, the concept of blasphemy is nothing more that the effort of religious zealots to squelch dissent. Historically, that has included acts of unspeakable torture and brutality against those who dare to dissent from such dogmatic reasoning. Personally, I say that anyone who uses the blasphemy card to try to rationalize what cannot be rationalized can kiss my atheist ass.

 

[orogenicman]

John 15:22-24
"If I had not come to them and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; now, however, their sin cannot be excused. To hate me is to hate my Father. Had I not performed such works among them as no one has ever done before, they would not be guilty of sin; but as it is, they have seen, and they go on hating me and my Father."

I don't see how this statement expounds on how Oro was blaspheming. Read this again and then think about it in the context of the argument you're making.

Well, for starters, are we in agreement that Orogenicman was blaspheming? After all, that is larger matter here.

If Orogenicman was some clueless low intelligent wanderer who was only interested in base pleasures and lust, then he might not be guilty of blasphemy by making fun of godly stuff since his mind is incapable understanding the gravity of the subject. But the John verses I site (in my own interpretation only) appear to allude to the situation of someone who knows very well what is at stake, what is being taught, what is the evidence and reasons for it, and what is also possible consequences. Said individual allegedly mocks the whole idea by laughing out loud when tragic comedian calls G-d a prick. And all the related similar humor following. To that Jesus says (paraphrase) “you claim to know what is at stake and still do not care. Ok, fine, but now you are far more accountable for your actions and decisions.”

Essentially, the people he's accusing of blasphemy and hating God in these verses are only guilty of such because they spoke with Jesus and watched him perform miracles and continued to blaspheme.

I am not going to change all I wrote above now that I have read the rest of your post. No, we very much disagree. Jesus has spoken directly to orgogenicman and directly to you and me. We are not ignorant, far from it. Neither you nor attorney will ever be able to trick God or convince God that you had no idea what this was all about. Sorry, no chance, IMO.

Jesus was a man, lived ~2,000 years ago (assuming that he existed at all), and is dead, and will always be dead now and in the future. He wasn't a god, nor a son of a god, nor was he even that remarkable of a man. He didn't violate the laws of physics because that would be impossible, and so all of the miracles attributed to him are simply wishful thinking or else embellishments by his followers to make him appear to be more than what he was. He didn't die for our sins; he died because ignorant people like you saw him as a blasphemer and hence , in their small minds, a dangerous man and they had him killed. Are you going to have me killed for being a "blasphemer"? Will a cult of 'orogenicman' arise as a result of my heinous death at the hands of you modern religious radicals?

You really should take a pill, dude, because, damn.

 

[orogenicman]

Sounds like this "new" atheism is just the same old tricks the adversary has been pulling for millenia. Always criticizing never creating

not the adversary shit again!

I'm going to speak the truth of what I see and observe, even if you don't want me to. You are free to not listen and ignore. I wish you no ill will whatsoever. I am just not going to stop speaking the truth I see because you don't want to hear it.

Now should the Lord correct me and show me I am wrong about something, I will gladly correct my observations.

There is a God in Heaven and we have an adversary seeking to drag us down to hell. He will try to do it subtlely or with force. But regardless of the tactic he uses, he is real. He is just as real as the Lord is. Denying it wont change it. Nor will believing it change it. It just is.

Bellevue must have opened the doors wide and let all the nutz out.

 

[orogenicman]

Blasphemy, the crime that cannot be spoken

Imagine being hung upside down by your feet. Electric wires are tied around your ankles and you’re threatened repeatedly with electrocution. In addition, you are frequently pulled from your cell so that the police can beat you viciously.

Why?

Because someone accused you of making inflammatory statements about God. And even though your accuser later recanted his allegation, you were still “tried” for the crime of blasphemy, convicted and then sentenced to life imprisonment. Think about that: spending the rest of your life in prison for the “crime” of speaking your mind.

It’s absolutely incomprehensible. Especially for those of us privileged to live in America where we too often take our First Amendment-guaranteed rights to free speech and freedom of religion for granted. As an American, you can be excused for asking how someone could be imprisoned – or worse — just for something he or she has said or written.

For anyone who is unfamiliar with the term, blasphemy essentially means showing disrespect or contempt for a deity. While you’d likely offend a number of people by engaging in blasphemy, your right to do so in the U.S. is nevertheless protected by the previously mentioned First Amendment.

Yet in far too many countries (even one would be too many), blasphemy is illegal and the consequences are often severe. In many of those countries, being hauled off to jail for expressing a minority view about religion is a shockingly common occurrence. And the level of “proof” for such a crime can be astonishingly low.

In the United States, there’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In too many other countries, when it comes to blasphemy there’s guilt based on nothing but doubt if you happen to be a member of a religious minority … like a Christian in Pakistan.

Recently the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom released a report detailing Pakistan’s history of violence against religious freedom. The findings are deeply troubling – in just the last 18 months, the commission documented 203 incidents of violence in the name of religion, resulting in some 1,800 casualties and more than 700 deaths.

One of those cases involves a Seventh-day Adventist whose situation is recounted above to us from his lawyer (although the alleged insults involved the Prophet Muhammad). Accused of blasphemy by authorities in Pakistan despite the accuser both recanting his testimony and stating that the police forced him to level the allegation in the first place, Sajjad Masih was convicted of blasphemy and this month was sentenced to life in prison. There remains zero evidence supporting the charges.

Sad to say, a conviction based on no evidence is not rare in a case like this, not in a country like Pakistan where torture of Christians and other religious minorities is all too common. And while Masih’s sentence of lifetime incarceration is deeply disturbing, it’s not the most pressing problem.

Blasphemy laws themselves are the key issue. No matter what god the majority population in a country chooses to worship, making dissent by minority faiths a criminal offense is a terrible idea, for all kinds of reasons. To suggest that your god is happy to rule by coercion, happy to attempt to force people to follow through any means necessary — even torture or death — is beyond folly.

While Sajjid Masih is a deeply troubling current example of abusive enforcement of blasphemy laws – and I would encourage all people of faith to pray that his sentence is reversed and that Masih be released – there is a bigger picture to keep in focus. Laws restricting religious freedom are a scourge anywhere they exist, and on that point, the world’s citizens (even those who profess no faith at all) – must make their voices heard, and increase the pressure on governments that seek to restrict religious liberty around the world.

 

[turzovka]

Blasphemy is a religious "sin". How many of your fellow Christians have "blasphemed" about Islam even though both religions worship the same God? They have "sinned" but you don't level that accusation at them. Can you explain why you only fling that accusation at atheists?

Definition of blasphemy: great disrespect shown to God or to something held sacred or holy.(emphasis on the word “great” it has to be egregious)

If it turns out that Islam is the true religion of the one true God, then I would say many of us Christians are guilty of blasphemy. In fact, I would think we could be guilty of blasphemy towards Islam, Hinduism, or others regardless if there is any validity to their religion or not. Our God would not approve of such disrespect, that much I know. So to answer your question, I do not only accuse atheists of the sin of blasphemy, however, they can be guilty of it regardless if they believe in God or not.

But then, why should anyone give a shite whether or not you believe anyone is guilty of blasphemy? Again, the concept of blasphemy is nothing more that the effort of religious zealots to squelch dissent. Historically, that has included acts of unspeakable torture and brutality against those who dare to dissent from such dogmatic reasoning. Personally, I say that anyone who uses the blasphemy card to try to rationalize what cannot be rationalized can kiss my atheist ass.

I do not expect you to care what I think. I am merely pointing out that those who mock the Judeo-Christian G-d in vulgar terms are guilty of blasphemy, period. And I might add, I strongly suspect there are dire consequences that accompany such an act, in my opinion.

This has nothing to do with squelching dissent. I did also note that if I mocked some Hindu’s god, for example, in vulgar ways, I too am guilty of blasphemy according to my Christian teachings. The grave level of disrespect is a true sin. The fact such charges against you bubbles up levels of indignation, well, sorry, cannot help that. Do not care to remain silent about it.

 

[orogenicman]

Definition of blasphemy: great disrespect shown to God or to something held sacred or holy.(emphasis on the word “great” it has to be egregious)

If it turns out that Islam is the true religion of the one true God, then I would say many of us Christians are guilty of blasphemy. In fact, I would think we could be guilty of blasphemy towards Islam, Hinduism, or others regardless if there is any validity to their religion or not. Our God would not approve of such disrespect, that much I know. So to answer your question, I do not only accuse atheists of the sin of blasphemy, however, they can be guilty of it regardless if they believe in God or not.

But then, why should anyone give a shite whether or not you believe anyone is guilty of blasphemy? Again, the concept of blasphemy is nothing more that the effort of religious zealots to squelch dissent. Historically, that has included acts of unspeakable torture and brutality against those who dare to dissent from such dogmatic reasoning. Personally, I say that anyone who uses the blasphemy card to try to rationalize what cannot be rationalized can kiss my atheist ass.

I do not expect you to care what I think. I am merely pointing out that those who mock the Judeo-Christian G-d in vulgar terms are guilty of blasphemy, period. And I might add, I strongly suspect there are dire consequences that accompany such an act, in my opinion.

This has nothing to do with squelching dissent. I did also note that if I mocked some Hindu’s god, for example, in vulgar ways, I too am guilty of blasphemy according to my Christian teachings. The grave level of disrespect is a true sin. The fact such charges against you bubbles up levels of indignation, well, sorry, cannot help that. Do not care to remain silent about it.

I recommend that you read my response #84. Careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

 

[orogenicman]

Laws Penalizing Blasphemy, Apostasy and Defamation of Religion are Widespread | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

Several recent incidents have drawn international attention to laws and policies prohibiting blasphemy – remarks or actions considered to be contemptuous of God or the divine. In a highly publicized case last summer, for example, a 14-year-old Christian girl in Pakistan was arrested and detained for several weeks after she was accused of burning pages from the Quran.1 In neighboring India, a man reputed to be a religious skeptic is facing blasphemy charges because he claimed a statue of Jesus venerated by Mumbai’s Catholic community for its miraculous qualities is a fake.2 The man reportedly is staying in Europe to avoid prosecution.3 In Greece, a man was arrested and charged with blasphemy after he posted satirical references to an Orthodox Christian monk on Facebook.4

Pakistan, India and Greece are not alone in actively pursuing blasphemy prosecutions. A new analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that as of 2011 nearly half of the countries and territories in the world (47%) have laws or policies that penalize blasphemy, apostasy (abandoning one’s faith) or defamation (disparagement or criticism of particular religions or religion in general). Of the 198 countries studied, 32 (16%) have anti-blasphemy laws, 20 (10%) have laws penalizing apostasy and 87 (44%) have laws against the defamation of religion, including hate speech against members of religious groups.

As an extension of its continuing research on restrictions on religion around the world, the Pew Forum counted and categorized (“coded”) reports of the presence of these laws in 2011.5 The coding relied on 19 widely cited, publicly available sources from groups such as the U.S. State Department, the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the International Crisis Group.6 Although it is possible that more laws penalizing blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion exist than are reported by the 19 primary sources, taken together the sources are sufficiently comprehensive to provide a good estimate of the presence of these laws in almost all countries.7

This is the second time the Pew Forum has analyzed laws against blasphemy, apostasy and defamation of religion as part of its ongoing study of global restrictions on religion.8 However, the original study, which covered the period from mid-2006 to mid-2009, looked only at the number of countries that had laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation; it did not look at each type of law separately. In addition, the first study did not include hate speech laws. By contrast, this analysis uses a broader definition of defamation that includes laws against hate speech aimed at religious groups. Laws against the defamation of religion and religious hate speech overlap to some extent, but, in general, defamation refers to the disparagement or criticism of a religion while hate speech refers to words or actions that vilify, disparage or intimidate a person or group based on religion.

The previous study found that countries that have laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation also are more likely to have high government restrictions on religion or high social hostilities involving religion than countries that do not have such laws. This does not mean that laws against blasphemy, apostasy and defamation of religion necessarily cause higher restrictions on religion. But they do suggest that the two phenomena often go hand-in-hand: countries with laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion also tend to have higher government restrictions on religion and higher social hostilities involving religion.

Regional Patterns

In calendar year 2011, a total of 32 countries (16%) had laws penalizing blasphemy (remarks or actions considered to be contemptuous of God). Anti-blasphemy laws are particularly common in the Middle East and North Africa; 13 of the 20 countries in that region (65%) make blasphemy a crime. In the Asia-Pacific region, nine of the 50 countries (18%) had anti-blasphemy laws in 2011, while in Europe such laws were found in eight out of 45 countries (18%). Just two of the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa – Nigeria and Somalia – had such laws as of 2011. (See table for a list of countries in each region that had anti-blasphemy laws.)

In 2011, a total of 20 countries across the globe prohibited apostasy (abandoning one’s faith, including by converting to another religion). Such measures were in effect in more than half the countries in the Middle East-North Africa region (11 of 20, or 55%) as well as in five of the 50 countries in the Asia-Pacific region (10%) and four of the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa (8%). Laws against apostasy were not present in any country in Europe or the Americas.

Laws against defamation of religion were far more common worldwide than laws against blasphemy and apostasy. As of 2011, 87 countries (44%) had a law, rule or policy at some level of government forbidding defamation of religion or hate speech against members of religious groups.

Laws against the defamation of religion were most common in Europe, where 36 of the region’s 45 countries (80%) had such laws or policies in 2011. In most of these countries, these laws tended to penalize religious hate speech rather than defamation of religion. In the Middle East and North Africa, by contrast,15 of the 20 countries (75%) had such laws and most tended to penalize defamation of religion while relatively few penalized religious hate speech directed at specific persons or groups.

In the three other major geographic regions covered in this analysis, a third or fewer countries had laws against the defamation of religion, including religious hate speech. Such laws were found in 17 of the 50 countries in the Asia-Pacific region (34%), 13 of the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa (27%) and six of the 35 countries in the Americas (17%), including Brazil and Canada.

This analysis was written by Brian J. Grim, Senior Researcher and Director of Cross-National Data, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Research assistance was provided by Angelina Theodorou, Research Assistant, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

 

[AVG-JOE]

All I was doing by quoting Scripture was expounding on why I accused you of engaging in blasphemy.

Blasphemy is a religious "sin". How many of your fellow Christians have "blasphemed" about Islam even though both religions worship the same God? They have "sinned" but you don't level that accusation at them. Can you explain why you only fling that accusation at atheists?

Definition of blasphemy: great disrespect shown to God or to something held sacred or holy.(emphasis on the word “great” it has to be egregious)

If it turns out that Islam is the true religion of the one true God, then I would say many of us Christians are guilty of blasphemy. In fact, I would think we could be guilty of blasphemy towards Islam, Hinduism, or others regardless if there is any validity to their religion or not. Our God would not approve of such disrespect, that much I know. So to answer your question, I do not only accuse atheists of the sin of blasphemy, however, they can be guilty of it regardless if they believe in God or not.

Blasphemy:

The God of Abraham, as described in the Torah, New Testament and Koran, can kiss my ass.

-AVG-JOE​

The above is blasphemy ONLY to those who fear the God of Abraham described above.

To the rest of us, it's like saying "Spiderman can kiss my ass."

Because, while the wages of sin may be death, mythical vengeance is never worse than a headache or maybe a tired feeling for a couple of hours.

 

[daws101]

not the adversary shit again!

I'm going to speak the truth of what I see and observe, even if you don't want me to. You are free to not listen and ignore. I wish you no ill will whatsoever. I am just not going to stop speaking the truth I see because you don't want to hear it.

Now should the Lord correct me and show me I am wrong about something, I will gladly correct my observations.

There is a God in Heaven and we have an adversary seeking to drag us down to hell. He will try to do it subtlely or with force. But regardless of the tactic he uses, he is real. He is just as real as the Lord is. Denying it wont change it. Nor will believing it change it. It just is.

Bellevue must have opened the doors wide and let all the nutz out.

you have to blame geraldo rivera for that!

 

[Steven_R]

This has nothing to do with squelching dissent. I did also note that if I mocked some Hindu’s god, for example, in vulgar ways, I too am guilty of blasphemy according to my Christian teachings. The grave level of disrespect is a true sin. The fact such charges against you bubbles up levels of indignation, well, sorry, cannot help that. Do not care to remain silent about it.

That doesn't make sense, frankly. To the Christian there are no other gods, correct? Just the One God/His Son/Holy Spirit all wrapped in one package and every other god is a lie. So why would it be blasphemy to mock a lie or to disrespect it?

I'm an agnostic. I have seen no proof of gods. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't but they aren't showing themselves in any event. That said, I don't routinely blaspheme or mock other people's religions just because it isn't a nice thing to do. I don't care what anyone does or doesn't believe so long as I am left alone and it is isn't jammed into a classroom.

 

[daws101]

Definition of blasphemy: great disrespect shown to God or to something held sacred or holy.(emphasis on the word “great” it has to be egregious)

If it turns out that Islam is the true religion of the one true God, then I would say many of us Christians are guilty of blasphemy. In fact, I would think we could be guilty of blasphemy towards Islam, Hinduism, or others regardless if there is any validity to their religion or not. Our God would not approve of such disrespect, that much I know. So to answer your question, I do not only accuse atheists of the sin of blasphemy, however, they can be guilty of it regardless if they believe in God or not.

But then, why should anyone give a shite whether or not you believe anyone is guilty of blasphemy? Again, the concept of blasphemy is nothing more that the effort of religious zealots to squelch dissent. Historically, that has included acts of unspeakable torture and brutality against those who dare to dissent from such dogmatic reasoning. Personally, I say that anyone who uses the blasphemy card to try to rationalize what cannot be rationalized can kiss my atheist ass.

I do not expect you to care what I think. I am merely pointing out that those who mock the Judeo-Christian G-d in vulgar terms are guilty of blasphemy, period. And I might add, I strongly suspect there are dire consequences that accompany such an act, in my opinion.

This has nothing to do with squelching dissent. I did also note that if I mocked some Hindu’s god, for example, in vulgar ways, I too am guilty of blasphemy according to my Christian teachings. The grave level of disrespect is a true sin. The fact such charges against you bubbles up levels of indignation, well, sorry, cannot help that. Do not care to remain silent about it.

if you're such a sinner why not do us all a favor and flagellate yourself constantly..?

 

[turzovka]

I will try to read up on your response #84 if I can find the time. In the meantime I spend some time on this one:

Well, let me explain it to you as a former Catholic who spent nine years in Catholic schools, the Catholic Church not only does not reject evolution, it teaches evolutionary biology in its schools. Catholic elementary and high schools is where I had my first exposure to it.

Yes, I suspect you are mostly correct. You might notice the spineless Catholic universities in this nation (the majority I fear) offer classes that are in violation of Catholic teaching and in violation of Biblical morals. They put on blasphemous plays and so on. Hardly makes it Catholic.

But to your point --- I am very much of the opinion the only reason Catholic schools go along with contemporary thought on evolution is because 1) it is not a deal breaker on the condition of the soul and therefore why bring in more controversy upon itself? We are already suffering horribly from popular opinion and treatment by the media on clergy abuses, our positions on birth control, abortion and homosexuality --- what gain is there in pressing the evolution argument? Yes, I do believe this. I do not think the vast majority of priests or bishops care all that much one way or another if we evolved or were created. They only insist God was the authore either way and that is all that really matters.


In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic TE position, according to which God created, evolution occurred, human beings may indeed have been descended from more primitive forms, and the Hand of God was required for the production of the human soul. You didn't know this? Huh.

Didn’t know what? This is no papal bull or decree of any sort. I did read the words “may have” which is far from a position of certitude. I explained it all already above.


Quote mining scientists is the primary trade of creationists, and frankly, the only argument (and a very lame one) that they can make. That's just sad.

The quote mining charge --- speaking of a lame defense. Since you don’t like what someone said, you or anybody trots out the quote mining defense. That is weak. Dance around the facts all you want, but there is no question Gould, Stanley and many other great evolution scientists are greatly troubled there is no fossil evidence for gradual evolution. You know what that says to me personally? ----- if there is no evidence for gradual evolution then evolution never occurred. God created every species in their fully developed form. If evolution occurred it would be patently obvious in both the fossil evidence, and it would be perpetually occurring in significant observant forms here and now, not just some micro-changes within a species or with some bacteria under a microscope. Finally, I do not care that Gould is an ardent believer in evolution, his honest statements on the lack of evidence are crushing to the theory.


Gee, that' wasn't an expected response - NOT. The argument about transitional species is a spurious argument - ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL.

I know. Since science after centuries of search cannot find those rare and pined for transitional fossils they have altered the theory instead. I am sure the only problem is we have yet to find all those species of half lizard half birds that must exist? No doubt there are also all other interesting species that were the missing links to what finally became a platypus, and so many other extremely odd creatures?

I've come to expect because I know that you people will never take me up on the offer because you are all cowards, hiding behind your bling faith, too afraid to face the real world. You have my sympathy, truly you do.

What on earth could your field trip provide that your beloved websites like talkorigins.com do not already provide or suggest?


If astronomy teaches us nothing else, it is how utterly small and insignificant we are in the great scheme of things.

That sounds vaguely familiar to me. It reminds me of this (forgive me if I paraphrase it poorly) --- “we had to have evolved from primitive animals because our DNA, etc. has so much in common with them.”

And I call that junk science, but more importantly, so do many scientists much more learned than I. Now you are suggesting what with the astronomy line? That there has to be other intelligent life out there because of the nearly infinite size of the universe? Or that given planets surrounding 70 sextillion stars (science’s latest estimates) it is nothing for life to evolve by chance with that much real estate and billions upon billions of years? Or maybe you can clarify your point for me? Here is my point. God created the immeasurable universe for man to be in awe of his creator. And to give thanks for what God has revealed and what we have been given.

 

[Peterf]

not the adversary shit again!

I'm going to speak the truth of what I see and observe, even if you don't want me to. You are free to not listen and ignore. I wish you no ill will whatsoever. I am just not going to stop speaking the truth I see because you don't want to hear it.

Now should the Lord correct me and show me I am wrong about something, I will gladly correct my observations.

There is a God in Heaven and we have an adversary seeking to drag us down to hell. He will try to do it subtlely or with force. But regardless of the tactic he uses, he is real. He is just as real as the Lord is. Denying it wont change it. Nor will believing it change it. It just is.

Bellevue must have opened the doors wide and let all the nutz out.

Who depressing it must be Orogenicman to live in a country where creationists roam just as though the enlightenment had never happened. Here in Sweden the only visible creationists are most of the Muslim minority.

Isn't it odd that in the USA, which imagines that it has separated church and state, religious creationist nutz who stand for public office are not laughed off the platform? They would be here.

 

[daws101]

I will try to read up on your response #84 if I can find the time. In the meantime I spend some time on this one:

Well, let me explain it to you as a former Catholic who spent nine years in Catholic schools, the Catholic Church not only does not reject evolution, it teaches evolutionary biology in its schools. Catholic elementary and high schools is where I had my first exposure to it.

Yes, I suspect you are mostly correct. You might notice the spineless Catholic universities in this nation (the majority I fear) offer classes that are in violation of Catholic teaching and in violation of Biblical morals. They put on blasphemous plays and so on. Hardly makes it Catholic.

But to your point --- I am very much of the opinion the only reason Catholic schools go along with contemporary thought on evolution is because 1) it is not a deal breaker on the condition of the soul and therefore why bring in more controversy upon itself? We are already suffering horribly from popular opinion and treatment by the media on clergy abuses, our positions on birth control, abortion and homosexuality --- what gain is there in pressing the evolution argument? Yes, I do believe this. I do not think the vast majority of priests or bishops care all that much one way or another if we evolved or were created. They only insist God was the authore either way and that is all that really matters.


In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic TE position, according to which God created, evolution occurred, human beings may indeed have been descended from more primitive forms, and the Hand of God was required for the production of the human soul. You didn't know this? Huh.

Didn’t know what? This is no papal bull or decree of any sort. I did read the words “may have” which is far from a position of certitude. I explained it all already above.


Quote mining scientists is the primary trade of creationists, and frankly, the only argument (and a very lame one) that they can make. That's just sad.

The quote mining charge --- speaking of a lame defense. Since you don’t like what someone said, you or anybody trots out the quote mining defense. That is weak. Dance around the facts all you want, but there is no question Gould, Stanley and many other great evolution scientists are greatly troubled there is no fossil evidence for gradual evolution. You know what that says to me personally? ----- if there is no evidence for gradual evolution then evolution never occurred. God created every species in their fully developed form. If evolution occurred it would be patently obvious in both the fossil evidence, and it would be perpetually occurring in significant observant forms here and now, not just some micro-changes within a species or with some bacteria under a microscope. Finally, I do not care that Gould is an ardent believer in evolution, his honest statements on the lack of evidence are crushing to the theory.


Gee, that' wasn't an expected response - NOT. The argument about transitional species is a spurious argument - ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL.

I know. Since science after centuries of search cannot find those rare and pined for transitional fossils they have altered the theory instead. I am sure the only problem is we have yet to find all those species of half lizard half birds that must exist? No doubt there are also all other interesting species that were the missing links to what finally became a platypus, and so many other extremely odd creatures?

I've come to expect because I know that you people will never take me up on the offer because you are all cowards, hiding behind your bling faith, too afraid to face the real world. You have my sympathy, truly you do.

What on earth could your field trip provide that your beloved websites like talkorigins.com do not already provide or suggest?


If astronomy teaches us nothing else, it is how utterly small and insignificant we are in the great scheme of things.

That sounds vaguely familiar to me. It reminds me of this (forgive me if I paraphrase it poorly) --- “we had to have evolved from primitive animals because our DNA, etc. has so much in common with them.”

And I call that junk science, but more importantly, so do many scientists much more learned than I. Now you are suggesting what with the astronomy line? That there has to be other intelligent life out there because of the nearly infinite size of the universe? Or that given planets surrounding 70 sextillion stars (science’s latest estimates) it is nothing for life to evolve by chance with that much real estate and billions upon billions of years? Or maybe you can clarify your point for me? Here is my point. God created the immeasurable universe for man to be in awe of his creator. And to give thanks for what God has revealed and what we have been given.

BELOW IS A FALSE STATEMENT:
" God created the immeasurable universe for man to be in awe of his creator. And to give thanks for what God has revealed and what we have been given."-turzovka

 

[daws101]

I'm going to speak the truth of what I see and observe, even if you don't want me to. You are free to not listen and ignore. I wish you no ill will whatsoever. I am just not going to stop speaking the truth I see because you don't want to hear it.

Now should the Lord correct me and show me I am wrong about something, I will gladly correct my observations.

There is a God in Heaven and we have an adversary seeking to drag us down to hell. He will try to do it subtlely or with force. But regardless of the tactic he uses, he is real. He is just as real as the Lord is. Denying it wont change it. Nor will believing it change it. It just is.

Bellevue must have opened the doors wide and let all the nutz out.

Who depressing it must be Orogenicman to live in a country where creationists roam just as though the enlightenment had never happened. Here in Sweden the only visible creationists are most of the Muslim minority.

Isn't it odd that in the USA, which imagines that it has separated church and state, religious creationist nutz who stand for public office are not laughed off the platform? They would be here.

THANKS NEW poster.

 

[MisterBeale]

Atheists know nothing.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z34ugMy1QaA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z34ugMy1QaA[/ame]

 

[daws101]

Atheists know nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z34ugMy1QaA

tin foil hat a little too snug?
no direct reference or inference to god was made or intended in that clip.so why the fuck did you use it?

 

[orogenicman]

I'm going to speak the truth of what I see and observe, even if you don't want me to. You are free to not listen and ignore. I wish you no ill will whatsoever. I am just not going to stop speaking the truth I see because you don't want to hear it.

Now should the Lord correct me and show me I am wrong about something, I will gladly correct my observations.

There is a God in Heaven and we have an adversary seeking to drag us down to hell. He will try to do it subtlely or with force. But regardless of the tactic he uses, he is real. He is just as real as the Lord is. Denying it wont change it. Nor will believing it change it. It just is.

Bellevue must have opened the doors wide and let all the nutz out.

Who depressing it must be Orogenicman to live in a country where creationists roam just as though the enlightenment had never happened. Here in Sweden the only visible creationists are most of the Muslim minority.

Isn't it odd that in the USA, which imagines that it has separated church and state, religious creationist nutz who stand for public office are not laughed off the platform? They would be here.

I think we need more immigrants from Scandinavian countries.

 

[westwall]

New atheism sounds like the Old atheism.

What's wrong with NON THEISM?

Why does it have to be A THEISM?

Nontheists can take the SAME scientific approaches that Atheists respect,
and PROVE the effects and process of prayer, spiritual healing, and forgiveness
on people's health from the mind to physical body and relationships in society.

So NO ONE has to be 'Anti' God or 'Anti' Theist
to prove the same concepts taught in religion are universal by using science instead of relying on faith based religion which is relative to those groups.

These do not need to be adverse to each other!

And I agree with the idea of rational argument as a check and balance;
if this were applied equally to scientific as religious biases,
then such atheists would not need to come across as [asses].
It's when people on either side get so biased they start attacking the other for the same,
then they BOTH come across as [asses]. Scientific proof can level the field as an equalizer.

Because in the end ALL religions go to war. Yet another line of evidence to support my contention that atheism is yet another religion. Agnostics (like me) simply don't care. You believe what you want to, and keep it to yourself, and I'll keep to my scientific view of things.

The religious intolerant of all belief systems are all equally obnoxious.

 

[daws101]

New atheism sounds like the Old atheism.

What's wrong with NON THEISM?

Why does it have to be A THEISM?

Nontheists can take the SAME scientific approaches that Atheists respect,
and PROVE the effects and process of prayer, spiritual healing, and forgiveness
on people's health from the mind to physical body and relationships in society.

So NO ONE has to be 'Anti' God or 'Anti' Theist
to prove the same concepts taught in religion are universal by using science instead of relying on faith based religion which is relative to those groups.

These do not need to be adverse to each other!

And I agree with the idea of rational argument as a check and balance;
if this were applied equally to scientific as religious biases,
then such atheists would not need to come across as [asses].
It's when people on either side get so biased they start attacking the other for the same,
then they BOTH come across as [asses]. Scientific proof can level the field as an equalizer.

Because in the end ALL religions go to war. Yet another line of evidence to support my contention that atheism is yet another religion. Agnostics (like me) simply don't care. You believe what you want to, and keep it to yourself, and I'll keep to my scientific view of things.

The religious intolerant of all belief systems are all equally obnoxious.

I was an agnostic for many years then it occurred to me how timid a position it was
.
besides if atheists are wrong...then we can do what lot's death row inmates do.. just before they get the needle.