Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Young Cosmos

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,08:24

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,07:33)

You are *completely* missing the point. It's all about personal morality and how we establish our morals.

Quote

SAL-- I’m refraining from commenting on the morality of human-animal sex in this post...

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: 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.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

carlsonjok

Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,08:31

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,08:11)

FtK, if you could ever actually read, with comprehension, other people's writings and respond to their words rather than the words you wish they had written from their evil atheistic darwinian perspective, you could play a big role in your own education.

Well, see, that is your fault, too.

If you hadn't forced her to keep her religion in the basement, she would have read for better comprehension. The lighting down there is positively horrible.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,08:31

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,07:47)

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:33)

You are *completely* missing the point. It's all about personal morality and how we establish our morals.

No.

YOU missed the point.

The point is that Sal is incapable of winning an argument with PZ (or any other grown up) so went after his seventeen year old daughter and quotemined her to insinuate that she was fucking pigs in order to gain cheap rhetorical points in his war on reason and that makes him a low life, amoral bastard and you defend him.

No, he didn't go after Skatje. *I* wrote the post about Skatje, and he pulled a quote from it.

Skatje is the one who came to *MY* blog to complain about *my* beliefs about what *is* and *is* not immoral. Nobody when after Skatje...she's a big girl and she surfs the creationists blogs just like the rest of you. She decided to park a comment at my place that wasn't ignored.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

ERV

Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,08:33

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:31)

Skatje is the one who came to *MY* blog to complain about *my* beliefs about what *is* and *is* not immoral. Nobody when after Skatje...she's a big girl and she surfs the creationists blogs just like the rest of you. She decided to park a comment at my place that wasn't ignored.

Unlike everyone elses posts that are just deleted-->banned.

carlsonjok

Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

Posted: 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.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,08:40

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.

Dave, atheism is not equivalent to evolution. Obviously, many people of a variety of religious beliefs believe that evolution was instigated by a designer.

The point is that, for the atheist, morals are the direct result of evolution. Do you see the difference?

Yes, for the atheist, eveything is the result of the process of an evolving world. But, the ToE itself is not atheistic. It depends on your interpretation and your beliefs.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,08:41

FtK wrote:

Quote

Yet, from the atheist standpoint, the argument was not against morality, but rather hypocrisy.

No, FtK, you idiot, from ANY standpoint the argument against Haggard is hypocrisy. Privately, Haggard was engaging in behavior that he vehemently opposed publicly.

And, since you are a self-proclaimed expert on standpoints what would be the Buddhist standpoint?

Don't think too hard about it, FtK. Just make something up for our amusement. It's working for you so far.

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,08:44

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.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,08:51

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 03 2008,05:08)

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,23:17)

Skatje went much farther than advocating that it’s okay for it to be legal. She went as far as stating that this type of relationship with your pet could be very meaningful:

Quote

Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn't to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can't obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn't anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?

That sure sounds like advocating the experience to me.

IMHO you are misreading this passage. She is here stating that we often have deep and meaningful relationships with our pets, which is true, and that we should not be surprised when those already emotionally intimate relationships become sexual. She is not stating that any such sexual encounters are themselves necessarily deep and meaningful, nor advocating them.

Her essay could be more clearly written and I think in some respects invites this misunderstanding. It does "sound like" she is advocating these encounters, but with careful reading you can see that she is NOT. Moreover, she has clarified the intent of her essay and that should be that.

For some reason, you just don't seem to be able to leave it there. And the reason is your investment in Sal Cordova, who by repeating his strange assertions in various ways makes it clear that he is NOT being misunderstood.

Bill, shame on you for taking this position. It's bogus.

If Sal had written the post Skatje did, do you suppose the Darwinists in the blogosphere would have ignored it? Do you think it would not have shown up here at AtBC *IMMEDIATELY*?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,08:52

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:44)

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.

Interesting. Presumably therefore you have already defined "what is science" and "what is not science".

Could you share your definitions with us?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,08:55

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:40)

The point is that, for the atheist, morals are the direct result of evolution. Do you see the difference?

Yes, for the atheist, eveything is the result of the process of an evolving world.

No. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. One is a religious (or areligious) perspective, the other is a scientific framework. Period. They are not linked by anything except your own wobbly synapses.

Think about this. There are probably atheists who have never heard about evolution. Where do they think that their morals came from? There are theists who have heard about evolution. Undoubtedly some of them understand that what we call "morals" may have arisen from natural, evolutionary processes, rather then being "god-given". If these things are true, there is no basis for the statement that "for the atheist, eveything (sic) is the result of the process of an evolving world."

It's a bogus linkage, and an argument from consequences. Give it up.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,08:56

Bill you wrote:

Quote

It does "sound like" she is advocating these encounters, but with careful reading you can see that she is NOT. Moreover, she has clarified the intent of her essay and that should be that.

It sounds exactly like she is advocating it for those who are into that type of thing. Now she has "clarified" that that isn't exactly what she meant. Fine. We'll go with that angle now. I wrote in regard to what she said, I told the truth, I didn't stretch anything, and I certainly did not lie. Facts are facts and they are all in writing.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,08:59

If morals were really god-given and "immoral" people simply ignored them then logically there would be simply 2 groups of people.

a) Those who adhere to the god-given morals
b) Those who do not.

Logically all the people in group A would behave in the same way to the same stimulus?

And yet the world does not seem to be arranged like that. Therefore god did not give humans morals.

Er, ok, i'm no philosopher but....

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,09:01

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:56)

Facts are facts and they are all in writing.

It's also in writing that you stated that Walt had submitted his book for peer-review.

Yet you don't seem to be able to support that "fact".

Why not?

Some facts are more facty they others in the moral world you inhabit yeah?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Tracy P. Hamilton

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,09:14

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 03 2008,07:06)

I have to say that I have always disagreed with the argument that atheism (or darwinism) leads to immorality, because I find such an argument unbiblical. The bible certainly teaches what we would call natural law, that all men have a moral compass. So in a way, just like you would say if you believe evolution is responsible for morality, it is not the lack of a moral compass that is the issue, but the willingness on the part of some to ignore it.

As far as this particular controversy goes, I would agree that it was an egregious example of quote-mining. I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement. At some level I agree with her—if the crime were truly victimless I wouldn’t care if it were not banned—because I see no call in the NT to make sin (and yes, from a Christian standpoint bestiality is certainly a sin) illegal—you are supposed to avoid sin regardless of whether or not it is a violation of civil laws. But given that the animal is a victim, let’s keep it illegal on that basis.

Now here is a rarity - a Christian making an argument for morality. A good argument. One where the counter would be to argue that the animal is not a victim. FtK could really learn something from David Heddle.

Amorality is what would properly be described as the absence of morality (no compass) vs knowing better and ignoring the compass (immorality). This is a distinction few people take the care to make, but might be useful for FtK to consider.

Quote

Furthermore, even if I was brought to a frothing rage by her post, to go after it even via a fair fisking would violate one of my taboos. Call me old fashioned, but even on the internet I think minors should be treated with kid gloves.

I agree - it is nothing more than bullying.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,09:22

I find myself starting off the year agreeing with Heddle!

This does not bode well for the space-time continuum. Something is amiss!

Spock has a beard in my universe. How about yours?

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,09:24

Even if FtK denies that evolutionary theory = atheism, her lap-peccary Sal makes no bones about it. In a comment on his Skatje thread from yesterday, he opines

Quote

Not only is Darwinism bad science which originated from the feeble mind of math-challenged Darwin, but it’s an icky ideology and view of humanity.

Of course, we can already hear FtK telling us that "Darwinism" is not the same thing as evolutionary theory. Unfortunately for that perspective, she has been unable to provide any definition of Darwinism beyond the circular "it's an atheist philosophy". And note that Sal describes it as "science", albeit "bad".

Clearly Sal and FtK confuse science with religion regularly and transparently. If not, perhaps FtK can comment on YoungCosmos and point out Sal's error to him. Her recent comment here - "the ToE itself is not atheistic" would be sufficient.

Best of all, Sal also promises

Quote

Thus, I’m quite happy to point out the disgusting aspects of Darwinism taken to its logical conclusion. PZ obviously despises this line of argumentation. Good. There will be more to come on why “Darwinism is Disgusting”.

Where's the popcorn?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,09:33

Quote

Think about this. There are probably atheists who have never heard about evolution. Where do they think that their morals came from?

??? This makes absolutely no sense *whatsoever*.

Take a tribe of uneducated cave dwellers who had never heard of the term evolution...it simply doesn't matter and it's irrelevant to the conversation. The fact is that atheists believe that these tribesmen aquired their social skills and their sense of morality through evolution and evolution alone.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

someotherguy

Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,09:35

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,09:24)

Best of all, Sal also promises

Quote

Thus, I’m quite happy to point out the disgusting aspects of Darwinism taken to its logical conclusion. PZ obviously despises this line of argumentation. Good. There will be more to come on why “Darwinism is Disgusting”.

Where's the popcorn?

Since the current discussion is obviously going absolutely nowhere, what does everybody think of dropping the topic and waiting until Sal posts again to post in this thread? I'm sure he'll give us much to argue about.

Just an idea.

--------------
Evolander in training

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,09:38

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,09:33)

Quote

Think about this. There are probably atheists who have never heard about evolution. Where do they think that their morals came from?

??? This makes absolutely no sense *whatsoever*.

Take a tribe of uneducated cave dwellers who had never heard of the term evolution...it simply doesn't matter and it's irrelevant to the conversation. The fact is that atheists believe that these tribesmen aquired their social skills and their sense of morality through evolution and evolution alone.

And your position is that they have to wait for the bible to be written before god can infuse them with god-given morals right? right?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,09:48

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 03 2008,09:14)

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 03 2008,07:06)

I have to say that I have always disagreed with the argument that atheism (or darwinism) leads to immorality, because I find such an argument unbiblical. The bible certainly teaches what we would call natural law, that all men have a moral compass. So in a way, just like you would say if you believe evolution is responsible for morality, it is not the lack of a moral compass that is the issue, but the willingness on the part of some to ignore it.

As far as this particular controversy goes, I would agree that it was an egregious example of quote-mining. I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement. At some level I agree with her—if the crime were truly victimless I wouldn’t care if it were not banned—because I see no call in the NT to make sin (and yes, from a Christian standpoint bestiality is certainly a sin) illegal—you are supposed to avoid sin regardless of whether or not it is a violation of civil laws. But given that the animal is a victim, let’s keep it illegal on that basis.

Now here is a rarity - a Christian making an argument for morality. A good argument. One where the counter would be to argue that the animal is not a victim. FtK could really learn something from David Heddle.

Amorality is what would properly be described as the absence of morality (no compass) vs knowing better and ignoring the compass (immorality). This is a distinction few people take the care to make, but might be useful for FtK to consider.

Quote

Furthermore, even if I was brought to a frothing rage by her post, to go after it even via a fair fisking would violate one of my taboos. Call me old fashioned, but even on the internet I think minors should be treated with kid gloves.

I agree - it is nothing more than bullying.

It's interesting that you support Heddle but condemn me, because I completely agree with him...except for this:

Quote

I would agree that it was an egregious example of quote-mining. I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement

It was not quote mining. Quote mining is taking a quote out of context and making it appear as if someone agrees with something that they don't. Skatje believes that zoophilia is an acceptable practice for people who *want to* engage in that act. It can be meaningful for them. I believe that zoophilia is immoral, so I would point out that is *not* okay for them engage in that behavior, even if they enjoy it and it's not hurting anyone. My belief has nothing to do with making it illegal or not.

The rest of his post entailed a joke that was uncalled for.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,09:59

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,09:38)

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,09:33)

Quote

Think about this. There are probably atheists who have never heard about evolution. Where do they think that their morals came from?

??? This makes absolutely no sense *whatsoever*.

Take a tribe of uneducated cave dwellers who had never heard of the term evolution...it simply doesn't matter and it's irrelevant to the conversation. The fact is that atheists believe that these tribesmen aquired their social skills and their sense of morality through evolution and evolution alone.

And your position is that they have to wait for the bible to be written before god can infuse them with god-given morals right? right?

No, I believe they were engraved with a moral compass. They could certainly be living immorally, and IMHO, their lives would be enhanced by living according to biblical guidelines. That is why there are missionaries thoroughout the world.

And, there is absolutely no doubt that this conversation will now take the path of the immoral acts of various missionaries. So, let me say upfront that sin affects everyone...EVERYONE...no one is immune, and some of the absolute nastiest people I've met are Christians.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Darth Robo

Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,09:59

Quote

The fact is that atheists believe that these tribesmen aquired their social skills and their sense of morality through evolution and evolution alone.

Have you ever thought that people get their morals by using their plain COMMON SENSE?!? Do you NEED your God to tell you that you shouldn't shag a horse, Ftk?

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

Darth Robo

Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,10:04

Quote

sin affects everyone...

So if God DID imbue people with morals then he didn't do a very good job then?

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,10:09

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,09:59)

No, I believe they were engraved with a moral compass.

So then what use is the bible? If they are born so engraved why bother with the bible? Why is it needed for to have moral values? What's in the bible that's not engraved at birth then?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Assassinator

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,10:14

Quote

No, I believe they were engraved with a moral compass. They could certainly be living immorally, and IMHO, their lives would be enhanced by living according to biblical guidelines. That is why there are missionaries thoroughout the world.

You do know that missionaries f*cked up every single thing they touched? Missionaries are one of the most revolting groups of people in the world. Do you know perhaps about the ethical politics from Holland in there Indonesian colonies back in the mid-20th century? That's a nice example.
But why would the biblical guidelines be better? At least the OT promotes incest (afterall, how the hell do you make a world population from 6 billion from 2 in just 6000 years?), killing other people is promoted, lots of immoral things are promoted. Are there good things in the bible? Yes, ofcourse. Love thy enemy, love thy neighbore. Nothing bad about that. The thing is, why do I need the bible for that? I can make up those things with simple logic.

Mister DNA

Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,10:15

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,10:09)

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,09:59)

No, I believe they were engraved with a moral compass.

So then what use is the bible? If they are born so engraved why bother with the bible? Why is it needed for to have moral values? What's in the bible that's not engraved at birth then?

We need the Bible so that we can determine the age of the earth, silly!

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

Kristine

Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,10:16

You guys aren’t going to flipping believe this!

Quote

Winston Churchill on the battle against the Nazi Darwinists and Perverted Science

I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization….
if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Winston Churchill before the House of Commons calling upon the citizens to resist the Nazi Darwinists in 1940.

The irony is the world’s leading atheist, Dick Dawkins, calls himself a Churchillian (after Winston Churchill). This rhetoric form Dawkins is Orwellian Doublespeak and revisionist history. Churchill stood for the defense of Christian civilization, not the destruction of Christian civilization as Dick Dawkins advocates.

WTF?

--------------
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

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007