There Is Evidence For God

[PoliticalChic]

The shitty behavior of religious people is the single biggest factor in the decline of religiosity of Americans.

Re-post without the vulgarity and I'll provide the response you deserve.

Meanwhile......digest this: Father Jame Altman putting Democrats/Liberals in their place.
….that the Democrats are promising. Riots, murder, food deserts because the groceries have been burned and looted. Real Americans are shocked and disheartened by the encouragement and outright support looters, arsonists, and thugs have received from the major party of the United States.



But it was quite a surprise to see that shock and anger from a precinct that I’ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ‘activists’ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and values…….
Yup…..a valiant priest spoke up blistering the thugs, the Democrats, and even his superiors in the Church.

Hate filled defenders of the faith like you are the single biggest reason people walk away from your Jesus fan clubs and never look back. How's that you flaming hypocrite?

Much better.

Here's your response, Democrats/Liberals/Militant Secularists/atheists.

View attachment 359552View attachment 359554View attachment 359555



“…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?”
Ben Shapiro

Christianity is just organized hate when the words of Jesus carry no weight in your attitudes and actions. Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? What is the example you show to the irreligious that Christians are good people? Jesus told us to look at ourselves before we criticize others. I took a close look at my faith years ago and found that American Christianity was nailing Christ back up on the cross every Sunday to shut him up all over again.

"Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? "

I'm glad you asked.....now watch me put you in your place.


The folks on my side are far more charitable than Liberals/Democrats/Progressives.



1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Arthur Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."


"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap




Another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?


Here's yet another book you'll never read:

View attachment 359577

I hear no love and charity for anyone in your words and never have. Your politics are nothing except a twisted rationalization for passing by on the other side without guilt.

I proved my point, documented same with Brooks' book.....

...and the best the government school grad can do is ignore it.

There are certainty some very charitable Christians out there but you are not one of them. If you care about anyone but yourself you have never shown it, not even once.

Liberal playbook, page one: when you are defeated by the content, attack the messenger.


NEXT!

 

[rightwinger]

The shitty behavior of religious people is the single biggest factor in the decline of religiosity of Americans.

Re-post without the vulgarity and I'll provide the response you deserve.

Meanwhile......digest this: Father Jame Altman putting Democrats/Liberals in their place.
….that the Democrats are promising. Riots, murder, food deserts because the groceries have been burned and looted. Real Americans are shocked and disheartened by the encouragement and outright support looters, arsonists, and thugs have received from the major party of the United States.



But it was quite a surprise to see that shock and anger from a precinct that I’ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ‘activists’ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and values…….
Yup…..a valiant priest spoke up blistering the thugs, the Democrats, and even his superiors in the Church.

Hate filled defenders of the faith like you are the single biggest reason people walk away from your Jesus fan clubs and never look back. How's that you flaming hypocrite?

Much better.

Here's your response, Democrats/Liberals/Militant Secularists/atheists.

View attachment 359552View attachment 359554View attachment 359555



“…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?”
Ben Shapiro

Christianity is just organized hate when the words of Jesus carry no weight in your attitudes and actions. Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? What is the example you show to the irreligious that Christians are good people? Jesus told us to look at ourselves before we criticize others. I took a close look at my faith years ago and found that American Christianity was nailing Christ back up on the cross every Sunday to shut him up all over again.

"Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? "

I'm glad you asked.....now watch me put you in your place.


The folks on my side are far more charitable than Liberals/Democrats/Progressives.



1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Arthur Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."


"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap




Another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?


Here's yet another book you'll never read:

View attachment 359577

I hear no love and charity for anyone in your words and never have. Your politics are nothing except a twisted rationalization for passing by on the other side without guilt.

I proved my point, documented same with Brooks' book.....

...and the best the government school grad can do is ignore it.

There are certainty some very charitable Christians out there but you are not one of them. If you care about anyone but yourself you have never shown it, not even once.

Liberal playbook, page one: when you are defeated by the content, attack the messenger.


NEXT!

Liberal Playbook 101

Attack stupid comments

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow!
Look at the anger, hostility, dishonesty from the secularists who hate the religious attitudes that attended the creation of this nation!

Judging by their posts, they'd burn religious folks at the stake if they could.



Where's this come from????

7. During what is known as ‘the Enlightenment,’ it became imperative that science cast religion as an enemy, else mankind could not pronounce himself ‘god.’

'The Enlightenment' has been given many differing definitions but it was, at its broadest, a philosophical movement of the eighteenth century which stressed human reasoning over blind faith or obedience and was thus in contrast with much of the religious and political order of the day, while also encouraging 'scientific' thinking. It was the belief that that reason can exist separate from civilization, and that ‘enlightened’ necessitates a repudiation of religion.
Philips, "The World Turned Upside Down"



8. But Militant Secularism, also known as Darwinism, became its very own religion, based on as much faith as on proof.

Consider the views of research biochemists: “…many difficulties arise in the claim of chemical autosynthetic events, that must be imagined to have led to functional biopolymers. These problems have been succinctly analyzed by Joyce and Orgel (1999) who concluded that the "de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive Earth would have been a near- miracle."
http://www.arrhenius.ucsd.edu/pub/lifeofchao.html


See….they believe in miracles, too!

 

[occupied]

The shitty behavior of religious people is the single biggest factor in the decline of religiosity of Americans.

Re-post without the vulgarity and I'll provide the response you deserve.

Meanwhile......digest this: Father Jame Altman putting Democrats/Liberals in their place.
….that the Democrats are promising. Riots, murder, food deserts because the groceries have been burned and looted. Real Americans are shocked and disheartened by the encouragement and outright support looters, arsonists, and thugs have received from the major party of the United States.



But it was quite a surprise to see that shock and anger from a precinct that I’ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ‘activists’ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and values…….
Yup…..a valiant priest spoke up blistering the thugs, the Democrats, and even his superiors in the Church.

Hate filled defenders of the faith like you are the single biggest reason people walk away from your Jesus fan clubs and never look back. How's that you flaming hypocrite?

Much better.

Here's your response, Democrats/Liberals/Militant Secularists/atheists.

View attachment 359552View attachment 359554View attachment 359555



“…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?”
Ben Shapiro

Christianity is just organized hate when the words of Jesus carry no weight in your attitudes and actions. Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? What is the example you show to the irreligious that Christians are good people? Jesus told us to look at ourselves before we criticize others. I took a close look at my faith years ago and found that American Christianity was nailing Christ back up on the cross every Sunday to shut him up all over again.

"Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? "

I'm glad you asked.....now watch me put you in your place.


The folks on my side are far more charitable than Liberals/Democrats/Progressives.



1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Arthur Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."


"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap




Another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?


Here's yet another book you'll never read:

View attachment 359577

I hear no love and charity for anyone in your words and never have. Your politics are nothing except a twisted rationalization for passing by on the other side without guilt.

I proved my point, documented same with Brooks' book.....

...and the best the government school grad can do is ignore it.

There are certainty some very charitable Christians out there but you are not one of them. If you care about anyone but yourself you have never shown it, not even once.

Liberal playbook, page one: when you are defeated by the content, attack the messenger.


NEXT!

Remember in the bible when Jesus was confronting some pious asshole and ended up calling them a hypocrite? You are lost in the woods of religious orthodoxy and have forgotten the core of the faith you claim to have.

 

[luchitociencia]

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.

This is a very common logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A bifurcation fallacy.

Speaking as a lifelong athiest who is very tolerant of religious folks, I think it is a mistake to frame it as an either/or proposition in the first place.

The 'evolution vs. bible' bullshit posits that either the bible must be true, or the theory of evolution must be true, when actually both could be true. And both could be false.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the bible that inherently contradicts evolution or vice-versa.

You have not read the bible, and this is the reason why you are a victim of ignorance in this topic.

The bible, when you read it in its Hebrew version, it tells you with specific words -which have been mistranslated for you in English- a set of processes which portrait a total different path of life changes than the evolution theory does.

And FACTS support greatly what the bible says, while facts are missing with the evolution theory.

 

[mamooth]

PC hasn't been struck down by lightning from heaven.

That's proof of the non-existence of at least any benevolent god.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The shitty behavior of religious people is the single biggest factor in the decline of religiosity of Americans.

Re-post without the vulgarity and I'll provide the response you deserve.

Meanwhile......digest this: Father Jame Altman putting Democrats/Liberals in their place.
….that the Democrats are promising. Riots, murder, food deserts because the groceries have been burned and looted. Real Americans are shocked and disheartened by the encouragement and outright support looters, arsonists, and thugs have received from the major party of the United States.



But it was quite a surprise to see that shock and anger from a precinct that I’ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ‘activists’ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and values…….
Yup…..a valiant priest spoke up blistering the thugs, the Democrats, and even his superiors in the Church.

Hate filled defenders of the faith like you are the single biggest reason people walk away from your Jesus fan clubs and never look back. How's that you flaming hypocrite?

Much better.

Here's your response, Democrats/Liberals/Militant Secularists/atheists.

View attachment 359552View attachment 359554View attachment 359555



“…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?”
Ben Shapiro

Christianity is just organized hate when the words of Jesus carry no weight in your attitudes and actions. Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? What is the example you show to the irreligious that Christians are good people? Jesus told us to look at ourselves before we criticize others. I took a close look at my faith years ago and found that American Christianity was nailing Christ back up on the cross every Sunday to shut him up all over again.

"Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? "

I'm glad you asked.....now watch me put you in your place.


The folks on my side are far more charitable than Liberals/Democrats/Progressives.



1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Arthur Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."


"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap




Another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?


Here's yet another book you'll never read:

View attachment 359577

I hear no love and charity for anyone in your words and never have. Your politics are nothing except a twisted rationalization for passing by on the other side without guilt.

I proved my point, documented same with Brooks' book.....

...and the best the government school grad can do is ignore it.

There are certainty some very charitable Christians out there but you are not one of them. If you care about anyone but yourself you have never shown it, not even once.

Liberal playbook, page one: when you are defeated by the content, attack the messenger.


NEXT!

Remember in the bible when Jesus was confronting some pious asshole and ended up calling them a hypocrite? You are lost in the woods of religious orthodoxy and have forgotten the core of the faith you claim to have.

I understand your anger, your rage, at seeing your worldview destroyed.....but attempt to post like an adult, not a third grader.

Clean up the language.

 

[esalla]

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.

This is a very common logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A bifurcation fallacy.

Speaking as a lifelong athiest who is very tolerant of religious folks, I think it is a mistake to frame it as an either/or proposition in the first place.

The 'evolution vs. bible' bullshit posits that either the bible must be true, or the theory of evolution must be true, when actually both could be true. And both could be false.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the bible that inherently contradicts evolution or vice-versa.

You have not read the bible, and this is the reason why you are a victim of ignorance in this topic.

The bible, when you read it in its Hebrew version, it tells you with specific words -which have been mistranslated for you in English- a set of processes which portrait a total different path of life changes than the evolution theory does.

And FACTS support greatly what the bible says, while facts are missing with the evolution theory.

The bible was written in a dead language and translated however the translators chose it to be translated. The proof of God is found in science not in a children's book

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC hasn't been struck down by lightning from heaven.

That's proof of the non-existence of at least any benevolent god.

As usual, you've missed the point.

Obama 'look-alike' cast as Satan causes stir

 

[esalla]

The shitty behavior of religious people is the single biggest factor in the decline of religiosity of Americans.

Re-post without the vulgarity and I'll provide the response you deserve.

Meanwhile......digest this: Father Jame Altman putting Democrats/Liberals in their place.
….that the Democrats are promising. Riots, murder, food deserts because the groceries have been burned and looted. Real Americans are shocked and disheartened by the encouragement and outright support looters, arsonists, and thugs have received from the major party of the United States.



But it was quite a surprise to see that shock and anger from a precinct that I’ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ‘activists’ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and values…….
Yup…..a valiant priest spoke up blistering the thugs, the Democrats, and even his superiors in the Church.

Hate filled defenders of the faith like you are the single biggest reason people walk away from your Jesus fan clubs and never look back. How's that you flaming hypocrite?

Much better.

Here's your response, Democrats/Liberals/Militant Secularists/atheists.

View attachment 359552View attachment 359554View attachment 359555



“…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?”
Ben Shapiro

Christianity is just organized hate when the words of Jesus carry no weight in your attitudes and actions. Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? What is the example you show to the irreligious that Christians are good people? Jesus told us to look at ourselves before we criticize others. I took a close look at my faith years ago and found that American Christianity was nailing Christ back up on the cross every Sunday to shut him up all over again.

"Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? "

I'm glad you asked.....now watch me put you in your place.


The folks on my side are far more charitable than Liberals/Democrats/Progressives.



1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Arthur Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."


"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap




Another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?


Here's yet another book you'll never read:

View attachment 359577

I hear no love and charity for anyone in your words and never have. Your politics are nothing except a twisted rationalization for passing by on the other side without guilt.

I proved my point, documented same with Brooks' book.....

...and the best the government school grad can do is ignore it.

There are certainty some very charitable Christians out there but you are not one of them. If you care about anyone but yourself you have never shown it, not even once.

Liberal playbook, page one: when you are defeated by the content, attack the messenger.


NEXT!

Remember in the bible when Jesus was confronting some pious asshole and ended up calling them a hypocrite? You are lost in the woods of religious orthodoxy and have forgotten the core of the faith you claim to have.

I understand your anger, your rage, at seeing your worldview destroyed.....but attempt to post like an adult, not a third grader.

Clean up the language.

So now you are the great destroyer.

Did God teach you this?

R U being Godlike or acting like a petty schizzo child

 

[esalla]

PC hasn't been struck down by lightning from heaven.

That's proof of the non-existence of at least any benevolent god.

As usual, you've missed the point.

Obama 'look-alike' cast as Satan causes stir

View attachment 359607

Now that was adult, go to the light Carol Ann

 

[PoliticalChic]

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.

This is a very common logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A bifurcation fallacy.

Speaking as a lifelong athiest who is very tolerant of religious folks, I think it is a mistake to frame it as an either/or proposition in the first place.

The 'evolution vs. bible' bullshit posits that either the bible must be true, or the theory of evolution must be true, when actually both could be true. And both could be false.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the bible that inherently contradicts evolution or vice-versa.

You have not read the bible, and this is the reason why you are a victim of ignorance in this topic.

The bible, when you read it in its Hebrew version, it tells you with specific words -which have been mistranslated for you in English- a set of processes which portrait a total different path of life changes than the evolution theory does.

And FACTS support greatly what the bible says, while facts are missing with the evolution theory.

I don't speak Hebrew, either.

I use Dennis Prager as my expert in this area.

But, don't forget.....

"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

 

[Marion Morrison]

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.

This is a very common logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A bifurcation fallacy.

Speaking as a lifelong athiest who is very tolerant of religious folks, I think it is a mistake to frame it as an either/or proposition in the first place.

The 'evolution vs. bible' bullshit posits that either the bible must be true, or the theory of evolution must be true, when actually both could be true. And both could be false.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the bible that inherently contradicts evolution or vice-versa.

The timelines do conflict.
Often things are found that the date is known on, and the carbon dating is not how old the things are.

 

[Hollie]

Wow!
Look at the anger, hostility, dishonesty from the secularists who hate the religious attitudes that attended the creation of this nation!

Judging by their posts, they'd burn religious folks at the stake if they could.



Where's this come from????

7. During what is known as ‘the Enlightenment,’ it became imperative that science cast religion as an enemy, else mankind could not pronounce himself ‘god.’

'The Enlightenment' has been given many differing definitions but it was, at its broadest, a philosophical movement of the eighteenth century which stressed human reasoning over blind faith or obedience and was thus in contrast with much of the religious and political order of the day, while also encouraging 'scientific' thinking. It was the belief that that reason can exist separate from civilization, and that ‘enlightened’ necessitates a repudiation of religion.
Philips, "The World Turned Upside Down"



8. But Militant Secularism, also known as Darwinism, became its very own religion, based on as much faith as on proof.

Consider the views of research biochemists: “…many difficulties arise in the claim of chemical autosynthetic events, that must be imagined to have led to functional biopolymers. These problems have been succinctly analyzed by Joyce and Orgel (1999) who concluded that the "de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive Earth would have been a near- miracle."
http://www.arrhenius.ucsd.edu/pub/lifeofchao.html


See….they believe in miracles, too!

A curious ''quote'' about the Enlightenment. That time period saw the casting off of repression imposed by the church which literally held back humanity for 800 years.

 

[Marion Morrison]

God creates men and women and the earth. Lack of God creates feral animal sub-humans and hell on earth.
If don't believe me, volunteer to go under the jail with a state baby sometime.
If you survive, you'll get my point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.

This is a very common logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A bifurcation fallacy.

Speaking as a lifelong athiest who is very tolerant of religious folks, I think it is a mistake to frame it as an either/or proposition in the first place.

The 'evolution vs. bible' bullshit posits that either the bible must be true, or the theory of evolution must be true, when actually both could be true. And both could be false.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the bible that inherently contradicts evolution or vice-versa.

"The 'evolution vs. bible' bulls*** posits that either the bible must be true, ..."


Untrue.


Many scientists are religious, and the majority of religious folks accept the idea of biological modification.

It is the failed theory of Darwin that is of issue.


“Nor are all biologists. They know better, too. The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts, or to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: unpersuasive. “Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once remarked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.” The God of the Gaps



Why is it demanded that what is basically a political view, Darwinism, be accepted as fact......when it isn't?

 

[Hollie]

I use Dennis Prager as my expert in this area.

Well that makes sense. A religious extremist is your science source. That's why you're befuddled about everything.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Dennis Prager is a fundie rightwing radio host, pseudo-intellectual, and regular contributor to Townhall, where he tries to argue that the United States is a Christian nation and that liberals are bad. As opposed to some radio hosts Prager seems to know something about history and religion, but mixes it readily with bizarre untruths, Jonanism, nonsense, and psychological projection, for instance with regard to his claim that ‘the Left’ allows their ‘feelings’ to get in the way of policy; Prager himself would of course never do that. A fine example of Prager’s general acumen is displayed in this rant, where he argues that The Left is hateful. Why? Because they call right-wingers … hateful, and rightwingers don’t call leftists hateful. That’s the premise, and Prager is evidently unaware of the dialectical position he has put himself in. Hilarity ensues.

Prager’s nebulous enemy
It is sometimes a bit unclear who the Left is (Prager has for instance accused Ron Paul for being a “radical lefty”), but apparently “you cannot understand the left if you do not understand that Leftism is a religion. It is not God-based (some left-wing Christians’ and Jews’ claims notwithstanding), but otherwise it has every characteristic of a religion. The most blatant of those characteristics is dogma. People who believe in Leftism have as many dogmas as the most fundamentalist Christian,” but that doesn’t really help. Apparently Barack Obama is America’s first leftist president (possibly except FDR).
At least The Left is a group that is working to turn university students into bisexuals and try to make you mean. Indeed, education is one of Prager’s recurrent targets, officially since “the two greatest evils of the 20th century – fascism and communism – were often headed by well-educated individuals [among whom Prager counts ‘high school students’],” but really because educated people tend to disagree with him. Apparently the liberal intellectuals are “fools”, and part of the problem with them is that they are anti-intellectual. Duh. Liberals are secular – education means brainwashing into atheism – and that, again, means that they are immoral, and that we need to teach religion to children since kids today are so much less moral than before (since if there is no God there can be no morality). The Left is also often anti-Semitic, according to Prager, though when Christopher Hitchens confronted him with that claim during a debate, Prager was almost hilariously unable to back it up.

In short, by the rules of Jonanism, The Left is a generalization of strawman characterizations of mostly everyone who disagrees with Prager, and his criticisms are backed up by some serious spotlighting (though in Prager’s mind it is of course liberals who are overgeneralizing when talking about conservatives). He is of course no stranger to lying: In 2011 he predicted that during Obama’s State of the Union address the Under God motto in Congress would not be shown based on how it hadn’t been seen in recent years due to godless cameramen.
Prager University
As for the education part, Prager has attempted to remedy the lamentable current situation by founding his own “Prager University”. It’s benchmark achievement is apparently convincing Gil Dodgen to become a creationist (though some seem to suspect that Dodgen was really a creationist from the start). The fundamental principle behind the “university” is that “ever since I attended college, I have been convinced that either ‘studies’ confirm what common sense suggests or that they are mistaken,” which is not a particularly fruitful approach to science, and the university engages in some interesting marketing tactics (the name of R.J. Moeller, Dean of Students at the “university” is duly noted): Here is a discussion of one of its “courses”.
Prager on gays, Muslims, Judaism and women
Among Prager’s other main obsessions are, well, here is himself: “America is engaged in two wars for the survival of its civilization. The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war – a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization. One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism. One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home.”

When Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison was elected Prager argued that Ellison should not be allowed to take the oath on the Koran but instead the Bible since allowing Ellison to use the Koran would be more devastating to American values than 9-11 (despite the fact that no member of Congress is officially sworn in with a Bible – only in private ceremonies held after the official ceremony can religious texts be used – but for Prager the Constiutional idea that no religious test should be required to enter office is apparently irrelevant since the Constitution is apparently anti-American). The fact that some Jewish office holders, for instance, have been sworn in on the Tanakh was irrelevant to Prager since any Jews who used the Tanakh were “secularists who didn’t believe what was in it anyway.” Accoring to Prager, he has subsequently been persecuted by the Media through baseless accusations of islamophobia.

With regard to zeh gays (and he really doesn’t understand the notion of sexual orientation) he has tried to argue that the legalization of gay marriage is a greater threat to America than economic depression, partially because legalizing gay marriage will redefine the concept of gender itself (here is Prager on the 2008 California ruling). In his essay “Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism rejected Homosexuality” he put it this way:
“Judaism cannot make peace with homosexuality because homosexuality denies many of Judaism's most fundamental principles. It denies life, it denies God's expressed desire that men and women cohabit, and it denies the root structure that Judaism wishes for all mankind, the family […] But the major reason for anyone concerned with women's equality to be concerned with homosexuality is the direct correlation between the prevalence of male homosexuality and the relegation of women to a low social role. The improvement of the condition of women has only occurred in Western civilization, the civilization least tolerant of homosexuality [as proven, one must assume, by the gender equality in anti-gay countries such as Iran and Afghanistan] […] While the typical lesbian has had fewer than ten ‘lovers,’ the typical male homosexual in America has had over 500 [no citation].”
According to Prager and his fans, Prager has, after writing the essay (which is still used by openly homophobic sites such as the Catholic Education Resource Center), been persecuted by gay activists through disagreement and criticism.

Some of that criticism is surely directed at Prager’s conviction that marriage equality will lead to the legalization of polygamy and incest and that tolerance of the LGBT community will lead to “fascism in America,” as well as for his comparison of the 2013 Supreme Court marriage equality ruling on Proposition 8 to the Egyptian military coup of the country’s elected government. According to Prager, civil society will erode if we fail to enforce a strict definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Prager’s views on traditional marriage are themselves worth a comment. Prager has argued that wives “ought to consent to at least some form of sexual relations as much as possible,” regardless of their “mood”. Indeed, among Prager’s celebrated contributions to civilization is his novel view on rape (also here), and his take on the Sandusky affair. He has also claimed that liberal teachers and CBS news are responsible for ‘indoctrinating’ young girls with feminism and hence making them oversensitive to men’s advances which in turn is the reason why higher levels of sexual harassment were being reported by young girls. Women is also one of the greatest threats to science, which is a strange accusation given how little time and sympathy Prager has for science.

Indeed, as a result of feminism, women squander the “decade or more during which [they] have the best chance to attract men” by being “preoccupied with developing a career.” But according to Prager women are “not programmed” to prefer a career over a husband and family, and “most women without a man do worse in life than fish without bicycles.” So there.
Miscellaneous
As a staunch global warming denialist, Prager has argued that the fact that “leftists” believe in global warming shows how illogical they are.
Diagnosis: Yet another raving denialist moron. Prager does apparently enjoy quite a number of fans who seems to view him as an important intellectual, which, given Prager's actual levels of intellect, is rather telling.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Coming from someone who supports Donald J Trump
The most illiterate President in history. A man who gets his information from TV, believes unfounded conspiracy theories and makes decisions based on urges.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.

This is a very common logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A bifurcation fallacy.

Speaking as a lifelong athiest who is very tolerant of religious folks, I think it is a mistake to frame it as an either/or proposition in the first place.

The 'evolution vs. bible' bullshit posits that either the bible must be true, or the theory of evolution must be true, when actually both could be true. And both could be false.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the bible that inherently contradicts evolution or vice-versa.

The timelines do conflict.
Often things are found that the date is known on, and the carbon dating is not how old the things are.

I don't know of any religious folks who don't accept that the earth is some three billion years old.

I don't know of any Darwinists who can prove one species became another.

 

[Marion Morrison]

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.

This is a very common logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A bifurcation fallacy.

Speaking as a lifelong athiest who is very tolerant of religious folks, I think it is a mistake to frame it as an either/or proposition in the first place.

The 'evolution vs. bible' bullshit posits that either the bible must be true, or the theory of evolution must be true, when actually both could be true. And both could be false.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the bible that inherently contradicts evolution or vice-versa.

The timelines do conflict.
Often things are found that the date is known on, and the carbon dating is not how old the things are.

I don't know of any religious folks who don't accept that the earth is some three billion years old.

I don't know of any Darwinists who can prove one species became another.

I guess you don't know me, then. I do not accept that the earth is 3 billion years old.
If it was, we'd be a mile high in nothing but bones. Think on that.