Darwin, the Destroyer

[AVG-JOE]

denying sceince is no way to go through life

Nor is denying reality.

Whose reality? Reality is subjective to the observer - not truth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A simple caution: learn between sentimentality and sentiment.

You are wasting your time as shill. Wise up. Do some good work instead.

Too bad that you are as hardheaded as The Irish Ram, because you are far more intelligent, far more articulate, but blinded by your own feelings to reality.

For instance, you write, "c. Henri de Saint-Simon, the articulator of socialism, argued for the supremacy of the sciences over religion,", and I suspect that Thomas Jefferson, that great conservative, would agree that Reason should take the place of unreasoning faith.

Another fallacy is replacing "clergy" for "religion" as somehow a firewall against peasant and worker frustration.

You are as silly as Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. The world is far more richly and complex than you possibly comprehend. A shame that you waste your time as a shrill shill.

Wasted my time?

Now, how could you say that...seeing as you responded.

And...you might actually be forced to think outside your biases.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Too bad that you are as hardheaded as The Irish Ram, because you are far more intelligent, far more articulate, but blinded by your own feelings to reality.

For instance, you write, "c. Henri de Saint-Simon, the articulator of socialism, argued for the supremacy of the sciences over religion,", and I suspect that Thomas Jefferson, that great conservative, would agree that Reason should take the place of unreasoning faith.

Another fallacy is replacing "clergy" for "religion" as somehow a firewall against peasant and worker frustration.

You are as silly as Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. The world is far more richly complex than you possibly comprehend. A shame that you waste your time as a shrill shill.

Further, Jakal....

...when you wrote "Reason should take the place of unreasoning faith," you missed the point.

There only danger is when they invade each other's 'magisteria.'


Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown, has written in “Finding Darwin's God,” that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God.
Francis Sellers Collins , physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HG) has written a book about his Christian faith.
Then there was Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia).
And Einstein: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Is it being proposed that we maintain the rules and morality of religion without hierarchy? That's a step in the correct direction.

It still leaves folks with the false idea that these are externally imposed and not internally accepted.

Belief is choice.

Choosing to believe in a religion means that choosing not to is also an option.

"Religion" is how each one of us decides in the privacy of our own hearts what the most reasonable explanation is for where we came from and for what happens next, neither of which can be known.


21st Century Choices!

 

[L.K.Eder]

1. All too often, a trust-baby hits “21” and is blinded to life by the untold riches that flow through his fingers. In an intellectual sense, the wonders of science revealed during the Enlightenment had the same effect on many. Add the violence directed at the clergy as well as the monarchy, and one has the making of secularism.

2. So infatuated with the fall-out from the Enlightenment, the possibility that science might be able explain and/or control life, a desire was generalized, that the same physical and chemical laws could be applied to human beings!

a. The French Revolution, the Jacobin revolution, resulted in Reason replacing the Christian God.

b. “Auguste Comte argued that humanity progressed in three stages and that in the final stage mankind would throw off Christianity and replace it with a new “religion of humanity,” which married religious fervor to science and reason- even to the extent of making “saints” out of such figures as Shakespeare, Dante and Frederick the Great.” Charles Forcey, “The Crossroads of Liberalism,” p. 15

c. Henri de Saint-Simon, the articulator of socialism, argued for the supremacy of the sciences over religion, and predicted that, like religious, secular propaganda would employ artists and poets. His collaborator, Auguste Comte, also saw the need for a secular religion, a scientific materialism, which contends that the only reality is what can be detected and measured by human senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. His authoritarian thinking shapes today’s liberal’s doctrinaire insistence that science has the explanation for all things.





3. It was but a short leap to a mechanized view of human beings: evolution.
Herbert Spencer was the most influential popularizer of evolution in 19th century America. Actually, it was Spencer who developed a theory of evolution before Darwin and is credited with coining the phrase ‘the survival of the fittest'. He saw the process everywhere, not only in nature…but in human society as well. Spencer embraces other materialist thinkers, such as Marx and Nietzsche.
Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet?, by Peter Richards




4. This aspect of the Enlightenment is known as ‘naturalism.’ Naturalism aligns humans with the evolutionary scheme of things, i.e., the individual does not really matter, and has no intrinsic worth beyond the single task that nature assigns every organism: to reproduce so that the species will survive. Therefore, there is no higher purpose beyond sheer biological existence.






5. Consider the result of naturalism’s worldview on society:

a. LONDON (Aug. 26) - Caged and barely clothed, eight men and women monkeyed around for the crowds Friday in an exhibit labeled "Humans'' at the London Zoo.

"Warning: Humans in their Natural Environment'' read the sign at the entrance to the exhibit, where the captives could be seen on a rock ledge in a bear enclosure, clad in bathing suits and pinned-on fig leaves. Some played with hula hoops, some waved.

Visitors stopped to point and laugh, and several children could be heard asking, "Why are there people in there?''

London Zoo spokeswoman Polly Wills says that's exactly the question the zoo wants to answer.

"Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals ... teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate,'' Wills said. Yahoo! Groups


b. NEW YORK (AP) — Scarlett Johansson says that while monogamy might go against instinct, she's happy in her relationship with boyfriend and recent Black Dahlia co-star Josh Hartnett…. "I do think on some basic level we are animals, and by instinct we kind of breed accordingly," she says. Scarlett Johansson: 'I'm not promiscuous' - USATODAY.com


c. Sienna Miller tells ‘Rolling Stone,' "I don't know, monogamy is a weird thing for me," Miller, who is still seeing Law, tells Rolling Stone in its new issue. "It's an overrated virtue, because, let's face it, we're f–ing animals." Sienna Miller Says Monogamy Is 'Overrated' - Hook Ups, Kids & Family Life, Jude Law, Sienna Miller : People.com





6. So, which came first,….folks behaving like animals, or creed that instructed them to behave as such? “Obviously, Darwinian evolution is not just a scientific theory. It has worldview implications that percolate from classic literature down to Hollywood and into our living rooms.”
Nancy Pearcey, “Saving Leonardo,” p. 145.

nice copying mechanism.

condolences.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The fuck is with the numbers list? You can't just write like a normal person?

Watch your language.


Sad that you lack the gift of irony.

One with your avatar referring to 'a normal person.'
(thanks birdie!)

Priceless.

 

[L.K.Eder]

The fuck is with the numbers list? You can't just write like a normal person?

Watch your language.


Sad that you lack the gift of irony.

One with your avitar referring to 'a normal person.'


Priceless.

it is "avatar". what the fuck is wrong with you.

did something drastic happen this week?

 

[PoliticalChic]

denying sceince is no way to go through life

Nor is denying reality.

Whose reality? Reality is subjective to the observer - not truth.

Gee, I was kinda hoping that someone would see the reason for the examples in item #5...

...whether there is a societal benefit to those behaviors.


And compared same to behavior suggested by biblical values.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The fuck is with the numbers list? You can't just write like a normal person?

Watch your language.


Sad that you lack the gift of irony.

One with your avitar referring to 'a normal person.'


Priceless.

it is "avatar". what the fuck is wrong with you.

did something drastic happen this week?

Two posts...but neither commenting on the OP?

Slipping, birdie?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Watch your language.


Sad that you lack the gift of irony.

One with your avitar referring to 'a normal person.'


Priceless.

it is "avatar". what the fuck is wrong with you.

did something drastic happen this week?

Two posts...but neither commenting on the OP?

Slipping, birdie?

wha?

i no longer comment on your "OP"s.

you should know that.

i am merely interested in your well being.

and i want to dissect your brain, for scientific reasons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A simple caution: learn between sentimentality and sentiment.

You are wasting your time as shill. Wise up. Do some good work instead.

And you missed the point all the way. The question is not that I accept science without religion, because I accept both and take the plate each week at service. I also understand that you cannot blame just the clergy thus somehow excusing something nebulous as being "religion".

Jefferson would caution you to be more careful and not to be like TIR.

Too bad that you are as hardheaded as The Irish Ram, because you are far more intelligent, far more articulate, but blinded by your own feelings to reality.

For instance, you write, "c. Henri de Saint-Simon, the articulator of socialism, argued for the supremacy of the sciences over religion,", and I suspect that Thomas Jefferson, that great conservative, would agree that Reason should take the place of unreasoning faith.

Another fallacy is replacing "clergy" for "religion" as somehow a firewall against peasant and worker frustration.

You are as silly as Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. The world is far more richly complex than you possibly comprehend. A shame that you waste your time as a shrill shill.

Further, Jakal....

...when you wrote "Reason should take the place of unreasoning faith," you missed the point.

There only danger is when they invade each other's 'magisteria.'


Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown, has written in “Finding Darwin's God,” that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God.
Francis Sellers Collins , physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HG) has written a book about his Christian faith.
Then there was Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia).
And Einstein: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Is it being proposed that we maintain the rules and morality of religion without hierarchy? That's a step in the correct direction.

It still leaves folks with the false idea that these are externally imposed and not internally accepted.

Belief is choice.

Choosing to believe in a religion means that choosing not to is also an option.

No.

The issue that is being explored, or propounded, via the OP is that there is a philosophy that suggests that humans are no different from any lower organism....

...and, therefore, one should expect no different actions.


So, if one believes that we are very different from any other living thing, that we have the inexplicable ability to make moral decisions and derive satisfaction via individual purpose,...

...then each of us should be wary of subscribing to a view that endorses self gratification as the only 'reasonable' approach to life.


Of course, if one does have a view of a special character for human beings....it does direct one toward the idea of a Creator.

Mammals bleed red.

Pretty compelling evidence for a relationship between a boy and his dog that gets physical as well as emotional.

Why is the thought of being an animal from Earth so disgusting?
Earth animals are BEAUTIFUL!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WTNvsOczkc]Friends... - YouTube[/ame]

 

[varelse]

The fuck is with the numbers list? You can't just write like a normal person?

Watch your language.


Sad that you lack the gift of irony.

One with your avatar referring to 'a normal person.'
(thanks birdie!)

Priceless.

Try again. Formic. Literary reference

Google it

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. The French Revolution, the Jacobin revolution, resulted in Reason replacing the Christian God.

You say that like it's a bad thing?!?

It is a 'bad thing,' Joe.

There is no morality to science. Just who has imposed on the suffering
human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs,
attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,
military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?


You might also like to consider why the French Revolution turned a nation into an abattoir,
while the American Revolution, led by religious folks, gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

"The French Revolution is the godless antithesis of the founding of America.
Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s Nazi Party, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s killing fields, and the dirty waifs smashing Starbucks’ windows whenever bankers come town."
Coulter, "Demonic."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is it being proposed that we maintain the rules and morality of religion without hierarchy? That's a step in the correct direction.

It still leaves folks with the false idea that these are externally imposed and not internally accepted.

Belief is choice.

Choosing to believe in a religion means that choosing not to is also an option.

No.

The issue that is being explored, or propounded, via the OP is that there is a philosophy that suggests that humans are no different from any lower organism....

...and, therefore, one should expect no different actions.


So, if one believes that we are very different from any other living thing, that we have the inexplicable ability to make moral decisions and derive satisfaction via individual purpose,...

...then each of us should be wary of subscribing to a view that endorses self gratification as the only 'reasonable' approach to life.


Of course, if one does have a view of a special character for human beings....it does direct one toward the idea of a Creator.

Mammals bleed red.

Pretty compelling evidence for a relationship between a boy and his dog that gets physical as well as emotional.

Why is the thought of being an animal from Earth so disgusting?
Earth animals are BEAUTIFUL!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WTNvsOczkc]Friends... - YouTube[/ame]

Why would you say it's disgusting?

What is disgusting is the view that we are just like the animals.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Nor is denying reality.

Science IS reality.

How about the aspects of science that are not testable?

Then, the reality of the scientist is the same as the reality of the theologian.

Religion attempts to answer the questions of origins and afterlife. If science and its wonderful process of proving shit by repeating it in a lab could be applied, this discussion would be over.

There is no proof in either camp. Science does not apply.

Make up your own, or pick a story off the shelf that's believable to you at this moment in your life and remember... it's o.k. to change your mind if you discover additional evidence to base a theory on. It won't mean that you're a big ol' girl.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The fuck is with the numbers list? You can't just write like a normal person?

Watch your language.


Sad that you lack the gift of irony.

One with your avatar referring to 'a normal person.'
(thanks birdie!)

Priceless.

Try again. Formic. Literary reference

Google it

No....I believe I'll refer to you as pediculus. Google it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pogroms, inquisition, jihad, crusades, the rack and flame to avoid the shedding of blood during torture, burning at the stake, the excesses of the Reformation and the CounterReformation, Puritians hanging witches, Puritans hanging Quakers, Mountain Meadows Massacre, the murders of Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith in Carthage Jail in 1844, the murder of missionary Joseph Standing in Tn by haters of the LDS faith, etc.

Science is about acquiring knowledge, religion is about acquiring faith.

Both are put to bad uses by bad people, as both are put to good uses by good people.

There is no morality to science. Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science IS reality.

How about the aspects of science that are not testable?

Then, the reality of the scientist is the same as the reality of the theologian.

Religion attempts to answer the questions of origins and afterlife. If science and its wonderful process of proving shit by repeating it in a lab could be applied, this discussion would be over.

There is no proof in either camp. Science does not apply.

Make up your own, or pick a story off the shelf that's believable to you at this moment in your life and remember... it's o.k. to change your mind if you discover additional evidence to base a theory on. It won't mean that you're a big ol' girl.

Big Bang theory? When will it be tested in a lab?

Evolution?

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)

Accepted on the same basis as religion: on faith.

It's o.k. to change your mind if you discover additional evidence to base a theory on. It won't mean that you're a big ol' girl.

 

[percysunshine]

Cause....Effect....

A scientist understands the relationship. A liberal does not.