The Battle Between Faith And Reason

[PoliticalChic]

You are really sick.

I'm sorry if reality does not conform to your ideology.

My 'ideology' is based on truth and knowledge.

And, yes....you should be sorry.

Ideology is NEVER based on truth and knowledge, it is based on values. Claiming truth and knowledge is a dishonest distortion, like a lot of your claims.

OK.....once again.....and, you should start taking notes.


i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun

1. 1.
   a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

"This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience."
David Mamet

1. The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.

I'm glad you agree with me that ideology has nothing to do with facts and knowledge.

So glad to see you admit that you're a liar and a dunce.
You've served your purpose.....to be mocked and shown to be a buffoon.....Wounding you deeply was my pleasure.

Now....why are you back?

 

[alang1216]

Do you even logic? To you there is no such thing as morality or right and wrong. To you those are human constructs. To you there is only pleasure and pain.

I do believe there is right and wrong and yes, they are human constructs.

So THAT'S why you accept infanticide.

You simply have on concept of right and wrong.

I think he wants to see himself as something more than his ideological beliefs would allow.

Apparently he doesn’t like the sound of he is only motivated by pleasure and pain. But that is the lot of the atheists.

What I don't like are arrogant people who think they know more about me than I do.

 

[alang1216]

Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.

Change the subject?
An admission of my expertise on the fossil record and that Darwin was wrong? Excellent.

So I win again, huh?


How many times a day must I put you in your place?

You must have missed it when I said: "I find it ludicrous that to refute Darwin you use quotes by Darwin, Niles, and Gould, all firm believers in evolution" because you just repeated the same silliness. If you have something to show your fossil expertise that is not a cut & paste of someone else, I would love to see it.

Actually, any such claim is a requirement for those admitted to be atheist Marxists.



So we agree that everything I posted about the fossil record prove

a. that what Darwin promoted was the very contrary of what happens.

and

b. I have documented my expertise on the subject.



Your attempt to cloud the issue notwithstanding.

a. Like everyone, Darwin was right about some things and wrong about others. His being wrong does not negate his being right.

b. You have plagiarized the work of others. I fail to see how that demonstrates expertise.

"I fail to see how that demonstrates expertise."


Like so many people with smaller brains she actually thinks she is SMART!

I have no idea how smart she is since most of her posts are taken from others. I do know she is much less convincing than she thinks she is.

 

[alang1216]

Darwin was wrong about Darwinism, you dunce.
His value is to Marxist atheism, not science.
"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."

Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Smashed another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?







I never plagiarize.
Try to use words you can define.


Seems my thrashing you the way I do brings out the worst in you, doesn't it.

Darwin was right about descent from a common ancestor. If by 'Darwinism' (a very unscientific term) you mean natural selection, it is by far the very best theory on the origin of species that science has ever put forth. Period. If you have a better scientific theory I'd love to hear it.

 

[ding]

Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos.

I really believe you're living in a fantasy world. Can you provide examples of these virtuous and non-virtuous societies? I'd bet I could provide an equal number that prove this false.

You can see the exact same results in your personal life, Alan.

 

[ding]

That’s where you and I disagree. I say it is universal and exists independent of man. I say this based upon reason and not faith.

Universal morality is a myth, it is determined by your culture. That is why the various cultures of man of man are so different. All men have eyes though they may look very different. Eyes may be universal, their shape and color are not. There may be some basic cultural similarities, like don't murder, but the definition of murder is very different in different culture.

This is why two men may be moral and still want to kill each other.

Slight differences. There has never been anything which amounted to diametrical opposition. In other words, you are making a fringe argument at the same time you cling to your belief that you are a moral being and somehow believe you are different.

Are you saying it is rare that "two men may be moral and still want to kill each other"? It is the same argument you made about wolves and sheep. Both are equally moral but would prefer to see the other dead. If there is an absolute moral code given us by a creator it is that: survive.

I am saying in your world view there is no room for morality. Only pleasure and pain.

 

[ding]

Do you even logic? To you there is no such thing as morality or right and wrong. To you those are human constructs. To you there is only pleasure and pain.

I do believe there is right and wrong and yes, they are human constructs.

So THAT'S why you accept infanticide.

You simply have on concept of right and wrong.

I think he wants to see himself as something more than his ideological beliefs would allow.

Apparently he doesn’t like the sound of he is only motivated by pleasure and pain. But that is the lot of the atheists.

What I don't like are arrogant people who think they know more about me than I do.

The power of observation and deduction is strong.

 

[gtopa1]

7. Thomas Aquinas, syncing faith and reason, said: “They hold a plainly false opinion who say that in regard to the truth of religion it does not matter what a person thinks about creation so long as he has a correct opinion concerning God. An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God.”


Could science and religion have a nexus????



Have you noticed that the current scientific view of evolution mirrors what was written in the Bible, in Genesis?

If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.



The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.



Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or....possibly something else altogether.

Aquinas and G K Chesterton; my favs. The Bible of course is on a different plane.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Do you even logic? To you there is no such thing as morality or right and wrong. To you those are human constructs. To you there is only pleasure and pain.

I do believe there is right and wrong and yes, they are human constructs.

So THAT'S why you accept infanticide.

You simply have on concept of right and wrong.

I think he wants to see himself as something more than his ideological beliefs would allow.

Apparently he doesn’t like the sound of he is only motivated by pleasure and pain. But that is the lot of the atheists.

What I don't like are arrogant people who think they know more about me than I do.

Unless you're self deluded of course.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Do you even logic? To you there is no such thing as morality or right and wrong. To you those are human constructs. To you there is only pleasure and pain.

I do believe there is right and wrong and yes, they are human constructs.

So THAT'S why you accept infanticide.

You simply have on concept of right and wrong.

I think he wants to see himself as something more than his ideological beliefs would allow.

Apparently he doesn’t like the sound of he is only motivated by pleasure and pain. But that is the lot of the atheists.

What I don't like are arrogant people who think they know more about me than I do.

The power of observation and deduction is strong.

It's predicting and testing that matter most imo.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Do you even logic? To you there is no such thing as morality or right and wrong. To you those are human constructs. To you there is only pleasure and pain.

I do believe there is right and wrong and yes, they are human constructs.

So THAT'S why you accept infanticide.

You simply have on concept of right and wrong.

I think he wants to see himself as something more than his ideological beliefs would allow.

Apparently he doesn’t like the sound of he is only motivated by pleasure and pain. But that is the lot of the atheists.

What I don't like are arrogant people who think they know more about me than I do.

The power of observation and deduction is strong.

I walk into a paddock and see three sheep. I deduce: all paddocks have three sheep. Reasonable?

Of course not: this paddock has three sheep would be reasonable.

I walk for a year and every paddock has three sheep. I deduce: all paddocks have three sheep. Reasonable? No: every paddock I walked into this last year had three sheep.

However, my prediction from the first paddock is looking good.

The next day I walk into a paddock and there are 10000 sheep.

Where's the bloody butcher?????

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

That’s where you and I disagree. I say it is universal and exists independent of man. I say this based upon reason and not faith.

Universal morality is a myth, it is determined by your culture. That is why the various cultures of man of man are so different. All men have eyes though they may look very different. Eyes may be universal, their shape and color are not. There may be some basic cultural similarities, like don't murder, but the definition of murder is very different in different culture.

This is why two men may be moral and still want to kill each other.

Slight differences. There has never been anything which amounted to diametrical opposition. In other words, you are making a fringe argument at the same time you cling to your belief that you are a moral being and somehow believe you are different.

Are you saying it is rare that "two men may be moral and still want to kill each other"? It is the same argument you made about wolves and sheep. Both are equally moral but would prefer to see the other dead. If there is an absolute moral code given us by a creator it is that: survive.

You're personifying motives wrt animals. The wolf sees food; the sheep perceive danger. Neither is a moral position.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.

Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.

Roman Catholics have the same view(that workers should not be powerless and exploited): you saying Marx was a closet Mick?

Actually it was Religious folk who were most against exploitative practices during the Industrial Revolution after labour became very cheap.(For quite a while and in most cases employees were in fact fairly well treated. There were of course those who were exploitative hence the lobbying of Parliament etc etc )

Greg

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.

Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.

Roman Catholics have the same view(that workers should not be powerless and exploited): you saying Marx was a closet Mick?

Actually it was Religious folk who were most against exploitative practices during the Industrial Revolution after labour became very cheap.(For quite a while and in most cases employees were in fact fairly well treated. There were of course those who were exploitative hence the lobbying of Parliament etc etc )

Greg

Well.......

"Pope LeoXIII was concerned by how these twin evils, as he considered them—Protestant capitalism and atheistic socialism—both marginalized the Catholic Church in state affairs. In 1891, he wrote an apostolic exhortation,Rerum Novarum(On the Conditions of Labor), that laid out a Catholic economic and social model.

Leo’s model became the official social doctrine of the Catholic Church and soon gained wide acceptance as a “third way.”


.... Pope Leo’s new social doctrine was essentially an updated version of the medieval feudal order that had existed as far back as Justinian in the sixth century. The economic premise was the belief that equality is a cruel illusion, and that people are happiest when placed in a social and political hierarchy shaped and guided by the Roman Church."
Much More Than an Economic Plan - theTrumpet.com


Quite a stir, the new Pope, an Argentinean Jesuit, Pope Francis, has created!
In Francis we can see a return to the poor as the first and major concern of the church, borrowing 'liberally' from Pope Leo VIII's ' "Rerum Novarum."




".......people are happiest when placed in a social and political hierarchy ...."

Is any system, political or economic, practical if based on a misunderstanding of human nature?

 

[alang1216]

Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos.

I really believe you're living in a fantasy world. Can you provide examples of these virtuous and non-virtuous societies? I'd bet I could provide an equal number that prove this false.

You can see the exact same results in your personal life, Alan.

I was confident you couldn't back up your fantasy with any real-world examples. As for me, you quite wrong. I don't consider myself particularly virtuous but I have a great job, a great family, and a great set of friends. I see plenty of people more virtuous struggling.

 

[alang1216]

I am saying in your world view there is no room for morality. Only pleasure and pain.

Yet I have repeatedly said I am a moral person. It is your world view that has no room for any morality but your own. That seems immoral to me...

 

[alang1216]

What I don't like are arrogant people who think they know more about me than I do.

The power of observation and deduction is strong.

So is the power of self-delusion apparently.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Do you even logic? To you there is no such thing as morality or right and wrong. To you those are human constructs. To you there is only pleasure and pain.

I do believe there is right and wrong and yes, they are human constructs.

So THAT'S why you accept infanticide.

You simply have on concept of right and wrong.

"
So THAT'S why you accept infanticide.

You simply have on concept of right and wrong."


Neither do you.

You have already admitted that you need a handbook (the bible) to tell you RIGHT from WRONG. Apparently without that book you'd kill, steal, cheat......

 

[alang1216]

What I don't like are arrogant people who think they know more about me than I do.

Unless you're self deluded of course.

Greg

A question everyone should be asking of themselves.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you even logic? To you there is no such thing as morality or right and wrong. To you those are human constructs. To you there is only pleasure and pain.

I do believe there is right and wrong and yes, they are human constructs.

So THAT'S why you accept infanticide.

You simply have on concept of right and wrong.

"
So THAT'S why you accept infanticide.

You simply have on concept of right and wrong."


Neither do you.

You have already admitted that you need a handbook (the bible) to tell you RIGHT from WRONG. Apparently without that book you'd kill, steal, cheat......

Now let's see what I actually posted.

"This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience."
David Mamet




The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.
Mamet.



You Marxists use an entirely different ''handbook"....one what caused over 100 million deaths in the last century alone.

Proud of it, mud????