Kristine
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,07:44) | | Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 03 2008,08:33) | | Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,08:30) | | Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:22) | I'm saying that, within an evolving world, there are no moral absolutes. Morality is relative. The acts that Skatje condones can become morally acceptable because there is no reason for them not to unless someone else is hurt in the act. Do what you want as long as you don't think it's hurting someone else. Even that moral rule evolved through evolution.
That does not mean that all atheists would become involved in those actions or even approve of them. Everyone has their own reasons for why they would or would not participate in such behavior. There is no particular base for morality, but rather our morality is based on present social situations, and it is relative, evolving, and certainly not absolute. |
My emphasis added. Note the switch in words from "evolving" to "atheist" without skipping a beat between these two paragraphs.
If you ever needed proof that FtK believes that evolution, a scientific theory, is identical to atheism, a perspective about deities or lack thereof, you've got it right here. If you ever needed proof that she doesn't understand the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism, you've got it right here. If you want to understand why these conversations go in circles, you've got it right here. |
And why she seems to reserve special bitterness for Wes, who, as a professed Christian, is seen as a traitor to the cause. |
Untrue. I resent Wes because he was part of an organization that works overtime at condemning anything that does not fall within their dogma of what science is and is not. NSCE along with KCFS were responsible for feeding the public with completely inaccurate information about what was occuring here in Kansas in regard to the science standards debacle. |
Oh, yeah. Far be it for scientists to define what science is or isn't. Don’t ever ask yourself why a credentialed scientist and Christian would advocate a position contrary to yours. He must be wrong.
| Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:27) | | I've watched you cut at Christians endless times at your blog, and yet you have the audacity to go after me for being honest. |
In all honesty, it's not me who attacks or “resents” Christians who are legitimate scientists. Or bans them from my blog, unlike Dembski.
I am not the one estranging myself from scientists who are Christian or any other religion. They’re still coming to my blog, and e-mailing me. I’m watching you cut yourself off. You're doing it to yourself.
| Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,07:56) | | Facts are facts and they are all in writing. |
Oh, "facts are facts." What's the age of the earth again? Since we're being so honest here.
--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr
|
