U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-22-2009, 02:36 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 18,324,135 times
Reputation: 14448

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post
In the end he was martyred for his stand against the bigoted racism of the time that was backed by pseudo-science of those times.
I think that you would be hard pressed to prove that Frank Kelly, and Irish Catholic, shot O.V. Catto as a result of his knowledge of 1871 theories on the origins of the species. What we do know is that the predominately Irish Catholic Democratic machine of Philadelphia was in a pitched battle with the Republican Party for control of the city. Catto like other men of color was an ardent Republican. So, spare me this latest attempt to patronize me by your inadequate efforts to advance your ideas about Christianity by appealing to my racial loyalties.

Quote:
for pushing and marketing an Atheistic propaganda Philosophy under the guise of science.
You can push an atheistic philosophy with propaganda but I don't know anyone who is marketing an atheist philosophy of propaganda.

But I digress.

Quote:
Now getting back to religion,
By all means,

Quote:
here's yet another large group of philisophical propagandist that are just as charismatic and influential at drawing a huge following. Pay close attention to this list...

What is it that the Atheist Philosophers and Televangelists do that is different ???

Careful, it's not about definitions or defining of belief systems.
Yes of course you did.
Ah, don't feel bad. None of the others have answered the question either. So you're in good company.
Please clown dance with someone else, I'm just not interested.

Atheism to me is not a philosophy, in fact it is the very opposite, it is an absences of a philosophy. Atheism is simply those who do not believe in veracity of 3,000 year old folk tales as a replacement for what we know about the origins of life and the cosmos. Pretty simple actually.

The "evangelical" nature, as you might put it, of certain atheist public intellectuals, is to expose these mythologies for what they are because they all to often present a clear and present danger to knowledge, freedom, and the advancement of civilization, and this is particularly true of the three Abrahamic mythologies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2009, 04:03 AM
 
2,256 posts, read 3,538,241 times
Reputation: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I think that you would be hard pressed to prove that Frank Kelly, and Irish Catholic, shot O.V. Catto as a result of his knowledge of 1871 theories on the origins of the species. What we do know is that the predominately Irish Catholic Democratic machine of Philadelphia was in a pitched battle with the Republican Party for control of the city. Catto like other men of color was an ardent Republican. So, spare me this latest attempt to patronize me by your inadequate efforts to advance your ideas about Christianity by appealing to my racial loyalties.
The entire mindset of those historical times was ripe for just such a dogma, added to the fact that these gents all lived during the same time period. There was a great need for there to be a scientific justification for their pathetic conduct. Let's face it, this was at a time of white Europeans conquering and dominating other lands, cultures and races. The dogma was responsible for the Australian Aboriginal elimination programs (Rabbit Proof Fence), it gave birth the an infamous Eugene Fischer, Aparteid, the Mr fischer's "Race Biological Institute" here in Uppsala , Sweden (1922) and the later one in Berlin , Germany (1924). I guess we all know the consequences of that one.

Yesterday, here in Secularist paradise, I just passed through yet another demonstration by those who want to keep Sweden homogenous. They are usually the extreme right atheists, they were counter protesting some left extremist Atheists who were championing a different cause in front of huge massive Soviet era type banners, and waving over two dozen giant Communist Red Flags. Sometimes a person can even experience a modern form of "Krystal-Nacht". One of the right extremist Gruppen Fhrer tried to shove some info14.com pamplet in my face and I refused. As usual, I got the same filth-foul abusive and bitter speech more commonly found here when there is no reasonable response to a question, but rather in this instance it was a combination of Swedish/English slang.

And to think, this place is considered the picture postcard of a Secularist Utopia ???
Quote:
But I digress.
Yes of course you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Please clown dance with someone else, I'm just not interested.
This is an absolute untruth and a lie since you came back here to respond. You must have at least some mild interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Atheism to me is not a philosophy, in fact it is the very opposite, it is an absences of a philosophy. Atheism is simply those who do not believe in veracity of 3,000 year old folk tales as a replacement for what we know about the origins of life and the cosmos. Pretty simple actually.

The "evangelical" nature, as you might put it, of certain atheist public intellectuals, is to expose these mythologies for what they are because they all to often present a clear and present danger to knowledge, freedom, and the advancement of civilization, and this is particularly true of the three Abrahamic mythologies.
Interesting.
You've gone ahead anyway against my cautioning and created a lengthy definition of sorts about the opposing sides as to what they stand for. I get it. Seriously, I do get it. I understand what both sides say and claim and you conveniently and completely avoided the question all together, so I'll ask it again.

What is it that Atheisitic Evangelists and Church Evangelists do that is different ???

Now to be fair, I always ask this same question about the Democrats and Republicans. Not what's the differences between them, but what is it that they DO that is different ???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2009, 07:06 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 18,324,135 times
Reputation: 14448
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post
The entire mindset of those historical times was ripe for just such a dogma, added to the fact that these gents all lived during the same time period. There was a great need for there to be a scientific justification for their pathetic conduct. Let's face it, this was at a time of white Europeans conquering and dominating other lands, cultures and races. The dogma was responsible for the Australian Aboriginal elimination programs (Rabbit Proof Fence), it gave birth the an infamous Eugene Fischer, Aparteid, the Mr fischer's "Race Biological Institute" here in Uppsala , Sweden (1922) and the later one in Berlin , Germany (1924). I guess we all know the consequences of that one.
Since it is clear that modern genetic research is the antithesis of the racialist argument, I just don't understand your point, unless it is to argue that science not religion has been a common denominator in racial bias, which of course is simply not true. The fact that secularist can act as inhumanly as their theist counterparts or that secularist can act as humanely as the most progressive theist is not the relevant to the present argument.

If religious writings are the work of man, as we atheist contend, then they will reflect the same good and ill within humans. Religion, like science has been used to promote racist ideologies, just as religion and science has been used to combat them. None of this has anything to do with the current debate on creationism/intelligent design vs. the Theory of Evolution.

PS - the Crayola school of color formating an argument is childish, distracting and does nothing to advance your argument and detracts from your credibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2009, 07:38 AM
 
2,256 posts, read 3,538,241 times
Reputation: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Since it is clear that modern genetic research is the antithesis of the racialist argument, I just don't understand your point, unless it is to argue that science not religion has been a common denominator in racial bias, which of course is simply not true. The fact that secularist can act as inhumanly as their theist counterparts or that secularist can act as humanely as the most progressive theist is not the relevant to the present argument.

If religious writings are the work of man, as we atheist contend, then they will reflect the same good and ill within humans. Religion, like science has been used to promote racist ideologies, just as religion and science has been used to combat them. None of this has anything to do with the current debate on creationism/intelligent design vs. the Theory of Evolution.
And yet with that, you have continued to not answer the original question I posed nor the second question.

Please cite for us an empirical scientific example of how a code naturally arises from nothing more than inert matter of chemistry and physics.

Thus far you have deflected from that.

You simply have a faith baised belief in what the Most Right Reverend Richard Dawkins said of DNA as nothing more than "a lucky chemical accident". That is one of the most unscientific statements a university educated man could ever make and followers of the good Reverend likewise show themselves to be actually anti-science. Now neither you, nor anyone else here have shown us an intelligent convincing statistical model proving that the encoded information in DNA most likely ocurred randomly from nothing more than raw inert chemical ingredients and physics.

The second question was, What do Atheistic evangelists and Church evangelists do that is different ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
PS - the Crayola school of color formating an argument is childish, distracting and does nothing to advance your argument and detracts from your credibility.
Nice deflection. Is this the best that your side can do when to don't have an answer ???

On an interesting note, some of the most bolden colouring textual posts come from atheistic posting members on this board and I notice none of the clueless ever seem to demonize them for using the backoffice tools that the City-Data Admin enables for all of us to post with at our disposal.

Last edited by bluepacific; 11-23-2009 at 08:01 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2009, 12:44 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 18,324,135 times
Reputation: 14448
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post
And yet with that, you have continued to not answer the original question I posed nor the second question.
Sorry, I rarely can make it beyond the first paragraph.

Quote:
Please cite for us an empirical scientific example of how a code naturally arises from nothing more than inert matter of chemistry and physics.
From my understanding you should look for articles by:

Jack W. Szostak, David P. Bartel and P. Luigi Luisi

John Stherland of the University of Manchester.

Gerald F. Joyce, Scripps Research Institute.

All of whom have been published in the journal Nature regarding their experiments to unveil the secrets of life evolving from prebiotic chemistry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/science/16orig.html

You simply have a faith baised belief in what the Most Right Reverend Richard Dawkins said of DNA as nothing more than "a lucky chemical accident"[/quote]

Frankly, I've never studied the issue nor have I listened to or read much from Richard Dawkins. My belief in evolution and atheism arose long before Dr. Dawkins or any other prominent atheist gained national prominence.

As it is says in I Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.
(I believe that is the Douay-Rheims translation)

Quote:
The second question was, What do Atheistic evangelists and Church evangelists do that is different ???
Write grammatically correct sentences? Because the question as written, makes no sense.

Quote:
On an interesting note, some of the most bolden colouring textual posts come from atheistic posting members on this board and I notice none of the clueless ever seem to demonize them for using the backoffice tools that the City-Data Admin enables for all of us to post with at our disposal.
Having the ability to do something, doesn't translate into a need to do that something. God gave me the ability to scream but I doubt that screaming threw an otherwise civil conversation would be useful in imparting any meaningful information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2009, 01:51 PM
 
2,256 posts, read 3,538,241 times
Reputation: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Sorry, I rarely can make it beyond the first paragraph.
Of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
From my understanding you should look for articles by:

Jack W. Szostak, David P. Bartel and P. Luigi Luisi

John Stherland of the University of Manchester.

Gerald F. Joyce, Scripps Research Institute.

All of whom have been published in the journal Nature regarding their experiments to unveil the secrets of life evolving from prebiotic chemistry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/science/16orig.html
Beyond a mild interest in their speculating and conjecture upon conjecture research, this is nothing more than science fiction and they even admit cannot be proven.

Seriously though, I actually think any experimenting they do is kool to find out how things were accomplished. I have no problem with that. But when it comes to those scientists listed talking about Aliens writing the code for DNA or hitching a ride on comets, the question is simply avoided and pushed back. Then you have to ask, where did Aliens come from ??? Or where did those microbes hitching a ride on the comet come from. Their biggest mistake is looking at DNA as a bottom up phenomena and it's not. It's a real language and written code of information and all codes we know the origin of come from an intelligent mind. The question just keeps getting pushed back further and further or avoided all together.

I think that was what ChrisC or Teak mentioned or alluded to the drawing of a circle around an object illustration. There's always something else outside the circle to explain. This is called Kurt Gdel's "Incompleteness Theorum" (or "Theory of Everything")

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem | Miskatonic University Press



Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Frankly, I've never studied the issue nor have I listened to or read much from Richard Dawkins. My belief in evolution and atheism arose long before Dr. Dawkins or any other prominent atheist gained national prominence.

As it is says in I Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.
(I believe that is the Douay-Rheims translation)
Paul was speaking in spiritual terms, not humanist material terms. In actuallity, it was the materialist worldview (the biggest downfall of the nation of Israel) he was comparing to Babes. However, if I was'nt religious, I'd probably be reasoning the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Write grammatically correct sentences? Because the question as written, makes no sense.
How funny, yes it does. You know the answer and you don't like it. I specifically never ask, What's the difference between Atheist & Religious evangelists, just the way I do between democrat & Republican. All I ever get are the definitions each give themselves, and that is never what I am asking. It's their actions and things they do that are the same. They are identical with zero difference between them with the exception of their outer garments. Inside they are rotten through and through. Both strive after gaining converts to their specific philosophy. Both strive to create obscene wealth off the poor saps the con. Evolutionists will write evolutionist books and atheist peasants will buy them. Religious creationist cons will write creationist books and their poor saps will buy them. In the end no one benefits and no agreements will ever be met. For our world and planet to survive, both need elimination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2009, 05:13 PM
 
123 posts, read 326,412 times
Reputation: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
Sure. But where are the hundreds of millions that are necessary evidence?

Or do you believe that there weren't billions of transitional life forms? Is that not a fundamental premise of the theory of evolution - that billions of microscopic changes took place over hundreds of millions of years?


So again, where are the fossilized remains of hundreds of millions of transitional life forms? If these remains cannot be produced, you must admit to yourself that you've got a problem with your theory.

Orocks, I am thinking that everything that dies does not become a fossil.I had tried to dig up my pet dog 3 years after he went into the ground(without the embalming a human body receives for burial)and i was horrified and then amazed,...and then enlightened on what happens to a body buried in the earth.
Although there was no fossilized prince,i assure you that he existed.He evolved from wolves.He was a great dog.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2009, 07:11 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 18,324,135 times
Reputation: 14448
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnoteddie View Post
I had tried to dig up my pet dog 3 years after he went into the ground and i was horrified and then amazed,...
Even more amazing is the fact that there are fossils to be found at all, considering that none of them were buried but instead left to the elements and scavengers for millions of years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2009, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Houston/Heights
2,637 posts, read 2,714,376 times
Reputation: 942
Very interesting all. but how does this explain the theory of evolution again?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:20 AM
 
2,256 posts, read 3,538,241 times
Reputation: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaskateguy View Post
Very interesting all. but how does this explain the theory of evolution again?
Appears to be a bit of update on the man who was the inventor of it and many of the faithful who celebrated his birthday yesterday. British Political Journalist Dennis Sewell was'nt among the faithful. Wonder why ???

Q&A: Dennis Sewell on Charles Darwin's Dark Legacy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091124/hl_time/08599194248300 - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:03 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top