Quote mining is dishonest.Therefore, Dan is a liar.You know what you are doing, Dan. Are you proud of it? Just wondering.......
Dan,I could link thousands of instances where people use their Christian religion to justify all manner of bigotry and hatred.I thought you were interested in practical disussion of the issues, but you have proved here that you are not.***kicking dirt off feet***Reducing the life work of individuals to one obscure quote is disgusting. I can do this to you if you want me to but you would kinow immediately that I was being disengenuous.You don't measure up to the paragon of virtue and honesty that you you want to be thought of.
Dan,Do you know what Martin Luther said abut the Jews?Do you wanna catagorize me from what other people say? Have I ever quoted any of those people as my saviours in the way that you quote the bible?If you want to proceed in insulting my intelligence, it's your blog. But it's not gonna gain any points or rationality.
Christianity is Dead. Literally.Martin Luther:"If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country"Pat Robertson:"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up"Cardinal Bellarmine:"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."Random Fundie:"That's the beauty of Heaven... we can leave our brains behind."
That last one about freethinkers is ironic as hell: We don't have any established dogma, rule book, or leaders. We're free to criticize anyone of our group that we want. For example, Dawkins idea of "Brights".It's you theists, Dan and Mariano, who are the ones who are not allowed to think. Remember that verse about taking all thought into captivity for christ?Geezus, are you people that stupid that you can't see that?
You like to read between the lines and, as Froggie said, mine quotes. I do rather feel sorry for you for trying to mess with the facts and quotes. I see no citations as to where you got the material, and I highly doubt that they are credible, wherever you got them from.Lets talk about genocide. Your own Bible cites many instances in which Israel wiped out the men, women, children and animals of a nation because they did not conform to Israeli thought. Remember reading about the inquisition in your history books? That was ordered by the early church after their "persecution time." You know whose name Hitler conducted his war crimes under? Jesus'. To quote Mein Kampf: "by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." The only person I know who didn't conduct genocide in the name of religion was Stalin.The laugh you post here does not represent the bigotry of atheists, but it rather represents your bigotry.
Well, I can appreciate the fact that some lemmings are Bad Religion fans.I mean, that's cool, right?In other news, a slew of quote mines. Not impressive.
Well Tim,Be my guest, go ahead and try to debunk any of these. Prove that these men didn't say such things. You are more then welcome to attempt to place things in context. I am very happy to see that someone like yourself is appalled as to the statements in utter disbelief. Here I will help you with the first one:"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton & Company), p. 1.I know! Unbelievable isn't it?
These quotes mean nothing. None of these guys is a True Atheist™.--Stan
Sorry about how my post had come across, I have done more looking over your blog and at first when I read this you appeared to be like many Christians I've talked with extensively: using fraudulent ad hominem attacks.Now, allow me to give a rebuttal to your interpretations of these statements, as I've looked over them again and thought them over.As we are not followers of any religion, we have no obligation to follow "teachings" of others. We are to think and consider what other people say.In your quote labeled "Intolerance", the atheist was making a broad assumption. He wasn't necessarily sound: some faiths aren't like that. However, might I mention that your faith has its own intolerance? Your religion's followers believe that all faiths besides yours are of the devil and evil and that any believers in those religions will go to hell.On the quote "atheist morality", he was wrong at "nobody cares." The members of humanity care about the welfare of others as was programmed into the minds of us and all life on this planet in the process of evolution. So, somebody does care.In the "Morals For Dummies" quote, he decided to step outside measuring the default morality for continuity of the species in harmony. It was a theoretical stance. It doesn't mean he'll fight for the Nazis."Hope? Nope!" Might I mention that just because something sounds more pleasing doesn't mean it's correct (namely, an afterlife)?"Don't Believe What You See" simply because Richard Dawkins made the quote doesn't make it rock-hard. I like what Dawkin's doing in showing the other side. Doesn't mean I don't have discrepancies with him.Hope that gives a better picture of my stance :)
Dan,I could link thousands of instances where people use their Christian religion to justify all manner of bigotry and hatred.By that ridiculous logic you should be as negative about evolution as you are about Christianity, since evolutionary progress was used to justify racism, bigotry, murder and genocide.
Theological Discourse, ToE is a science. An explanation of how things are not how to be. Peer reviewed papers are not a moral handbook either and never have been promoted as one. You will not find any text in a TOE paper telling you that you must do something or be a certain way. If someone’s actions are claimed to be based on science, this is purely a conclusion they have reach themselves outside of what the peer reviewed papers say and inappropriate application of science itself. If someone tries to read science like a set of “how to be” rules, then they do not understand science.Religions and their ancient text are a set of rules and guidelines of how to be and are strongly promoted as that by many religions. Though I will agree in some cases the persons interpretation of the text might be incorrect, there are many example that when read plainly, do promote genocide, violence, bigotry and many other horrible actions.Though in both cases, sometimes a person misinterpretation and assumptions can be the cause of the issue, the religious text is the only one of the pair that is meant to be respected as a book of laws by a higher power. Science text is only promoted as an explanation for the world around us, not a moral guide.By your standards, text on selective breeding, which has been in practice long before ToE and reads more like the horrors you blame on ToE since it involves human intervention not natural selection, is even more responsible for many ills of society throughout history, and should be banned from teaching.Word is Bond!~Atomic Chimp
In response to Froggie, Theological Discourse wrote By that ridiculous logic you should be as negative about evolution as you are about Christianity, since evolutionary progress was used to justify racism, bigotry, murder and genocide.TD, you missed the context of Froggie's post, even though it was fairly obvious. His point was that the quality/accuracy of an idea is not directly related to the quality/accuracy of beliefs which are based upon that idea.YOU actually AGREE with Froggie's reasoning. The KKK justifies its beliefs on the Bible, yet I doubt you'd remain quiet if someone claimed that justification rendered the Bible evil.Amirite?The same holds true for the theory of evolution, the Bible, political parties, taste in music, whatever. The quality of a person's beliefs & actions is based on the beliefs and actions themselves - not on whatever they used to justify them.So - why exactly did you jump down Froggie's throat? All he was doing was reminding Dan that constructive dialogue necessitates avoiding generalization.
Chimp,By your standards, text on selective breeding, which has been in practice long before ToE and reads more like the horrors you blame on ToE since it involves human intervention not natural selection, is even more responsible for many ills of society throughout history, and should be banned from teaching. Do you believe abortions are a form of natural selection? Should that be banned also?
Like always, Atomic chimp misses the point.If religion is bad because people have used it to justify bad things in its name(as ignorant froggy just said) then so is evolution, since people have used it to justify bad things. Saying it only applies to religion and not science is nothing but special pleading.So - why exactly did you jump down Froggie's throat? All he was doing was reminding Dan that constructive dialogue necessitates avoiding generalization.I jumped down froggies throat because he made a very ignorant assertion, that he could link thousands of instances where people use religion to justify all manner of bigotry and hatred, well I could link a thousands instances where people have used the theory of evolution to justify racism, murder, hatred and genocide.
Theological Discourse said, "Like always, Atomic chimp misses the point."Glad to see you again too.If religion is bad because people have used it to justify bad things in its name(as ignorant froggy just said) then so is evolution, since people have used it to justify bad things.I thought I made myself clear, but I'll try again. This time I'll talk a little slower for you.I do not deny that there are many things that people have used to justify by or claim inspiration from, for their horrible actions but there is a difference between the purpose of religion and a scientific theory. Religion is a tool used to condition a person for a way of thinking and living. It is a cultural philosophy children are indoctrinated into. purports itself to be the word and laws of a god, and if not followed a person will suffer eternal damnation. The religious text are said to be the word of said god and a hand book of “how to be”, “how to deal with things” and “laws to follow”. This is what makes a persons interpretation so dangerous. This is why the religion itself is the issue or at least part of the issue at hand. If you have been raise to believe it is all absolutely 100% real and correct, and you are told that if you do not do as the sky daddy says, you will burn in hell and suffer forever, often a person would do many things an otherwise intelligent person would avoid.A Theory is an explanation for a natural phenomenon that is supported by a large body of evidence. It is not promoted as a way of living, thinking, or a set of moral standards. Knowledge can and will often be applied incorrectly or for action that might be morally incorrect, but the persons applying said knowledge makes that choice independent of the science. Science is a large body of knowledge to explain things that is always being expanded and corrected. Explaining how something works does not tell a person how to be. A person would need to draw those misunderstandings themselves. Religion is a set of rules, moral codes and “how-to’s” of life that draw from outdated text of a more violent age. Telling someone how to be using a very vague set of text from a the bronze age coupled with fear mongering, is a very dangerous combination.I hope that clarifies it for you.~Atomic Chimp
Dan Said,"Do you believe abortions are a form of natural selection?"No."Should that be banned also?"No.~Atomic Chimp
Theological Discourse wrote I jumped down froggies throat because he made a very ignorant assertion, that he could link thousands of instances where people use religion to justify all manner of bigotry and hatred, well I could link a thousands instances where people have used the theory of evolution to justify racism, murder, hatred and genocide.If you read the thread carefully, you'll see that this is exactly the same point Froggie was trying to make.
Dan +†+ said... Well Tim,Be my guest, go ahead and try to debunk any of these. Prove that these men didn't say such things. That's not what a misquote is, Dan. A misquote is when someone says something, but others come along and take a little bit out of what they said and leave out the rest of their point in order to make it seem that the person was advocating a point of view that they don't really hold.You are more then welcome to attempt to place things in context. I am very happy to see that someone like yourself is appalled as to the statements in utter disbelief. Here I will help you with the first one:"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton & Company), p. 1.I know! Unbelievable isn't it? Yes, the dishonesty of evangelicals is unbelievable...Read that quote again, Dan. Especially the part about having the "appearance" of being designed. He doesn't say that they actually have been. Onwards: "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning."As someone said: the premise that appearance can be misleading is not unreasonable. Scientists proved the appearance of the sun revolving around the earth to be an illusion. Here's some context for you, from the preface of the third chapter of that same book:We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process
Yes Reynold we are fully aware that RD does not believe God did anything in his life. We understand that RD believes all things happened by chance, even self-awareness...I am doing another post. TBC
Dan:Yes Reynold we are fully aware that RD does not believe God did anything in his life. We understand that RD believes all things happened by chance, even self-awareness...I am doing another post. TBC Then what are the purposes of the misquotes then, Dan?By the way, there's more to evolution than just "chance" alright? It's called "natural selection". Kindly learn something about what you criticize before you criticize it for a change.
Apparently, when one is embarrassed, cannot formulate a response or is too lazy to look up the quotes one merely states, "quote mine" and feels rather satisfied--or something.
I know it's late, but I've just noticed Mariano's comment now:Mariano:Apparently, when one is embarrassed, cannot formulate a response or is too lazy to look up the quotes one merely states, "quote mine" and feels rather satisfied--or something. Hmmm...I've noticed that mariano makes no mention of the fact that I've actually dug up the context of the quote?Apparently when one is embarrassed, cannot formulate a response or is just too dishonest to admit that a misquote actually occurred, one merely sidesteps the issue like Mariano did.Dumb move, but typical of evangelicals.
Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>