Posted on 09/30/2009 11:46:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust deniers?...
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.beliefnet.com ...
Atheists love islamofascists because they also believe Jews descended from apes and pigs.
I'm not too sure which orifice you pulled that one out of, but I have a very good idea.
Ping!
it came from this orifice:
Koran 5:60: “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, [as judged] by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped Satan - these are [many times] worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!”
hmm I guess that explains why creationists tend to be pro-life and evolutionists tend to support abortion
hmmm.. I guess you would be dead wrong on that one.
you’re right. Richard Dawkins is one of the most eloquent defenders of the unborn. of course. /sarc
You have some corroborated documentation of this?
(yeah, right)
Well, at least you’re making stuff up by yourself instead of posting drivel made up by someone else!
3 seconds!
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7104/full/442719b.html
“Whatever its motivation, Iran’s support for education and science is to be welcomed....
One practical advantage for science in Muslim countries is the lack of direct interference of religious doctrine, such as exists in many Christian countries. There has never, for example, been a debate about darwinian evolution, and human embryonic stem-cell research is constrained by humanistic rather than religious ethics. The Royan Institute in Iran was the first in the Middle East to develop a human embryonic stem-cell line, using spare embryos from its in vitro fertilization programme.”
None of which has anything to do with islamofascists.
Keep trying...
How about we start with the godfather of Middle East terror himself, Yasser Arafat:
‘...the Kremlin had charged the KGB to “repair the prestige” of “our Arab friends” by helping them organize terrorist operations that would humiliate Israel. The main KGB asset in this joint venture was a “devoted Marxist-Leninist”—Yasser Arafat, co-founder of Fatah, the Palestinian military force.’
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/pacepa-wsj.html
yeah and Ahmadinejad just wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes...
How is that germane to post # 10?
Apparently you missed how this got started. Xcamel once again claimed that Christian creationists are the same as IslamoFascists. Not only is her vile allegation patently false, but a huge number of the terrorists mistakenly labled IslamoFascists are in fact revolutionary evolutionists like Yasser Arafat. You see, Marxist-Leninists are revolutionary evolutionists by definition.
Wal-Mart has the medicine you need for a $4 co-pay.
Don’t assume everyone needs the same meds as you do, Wacko.
OK, so you got the Islam part of your ‘atheists love islamofacists ....’ thing covered with your quote, but you haven’t quite explained how that relates to atheism.
Atheists, btw, don’t worship Satan.
Again, no evidence presented either way.. just a wild swing and a miss...
Is it really so hard for you to stay on topic?
Modern Satanist groups (those which appeared after the 1960s) are widely diverse, but two major trends which can be seen are Theistic Satanism and Atheistic Satanism. Theistic Satanists venerate Satan as a supernatural deity.
==Atheists, btw, don’t worship Satan.
I don’t know about worshipping Satan, but there are indeed Satanic atheists:
`In contrast, Atheistic Satanists[1] consider themselves atheists and regard Satan as merely symbolic of certain human traits. This categorization of Satanism (which could be categorized in other ways, for example “Traditional” versus “Modern”), is not necessarily adopted by Satanists themselves, who usually would not specify which type of Satanism they adhere to. Some Satanists believe in God in the sense of a Prime Mover but, like Atheistic Satanists, still worship themselves, due to the Deist belief that God plays no part in mortal lives.`
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism
Ooops, sorry ZC...my last was meant for Ari-Freedom.
Not at all, and there is plenty more where that came from. Let me know when you want to have a serious debate about the issue. Trust me, you will lose.
Not the way you twist up the facts. Never going to happen.
You can’t even pick a single definition of ‘islamist’ or islamofacisist without churning out a dozen strawmen and weak anecdotes.
This post is perfect for you...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2351795/posts
Like I said, if you ever want to throw down, I’d be glad to set up a debate thread, where I will demonstrate just how often terrorist acts are carried out by secular revolutionary evolutionists...just like you.
This “Richard Dawkins” isn’t very bright, is he? It’s like the great Gore Vidal. His beliefs seem to be cookie-cut out of the vapid Hollywood mindless-set.
These people get over-rated.
Haven’t you heard, your fellow evo-religious fanatics are far more likely to believe in alien abductions, haunted houses, Bigfoot, the Lock Ness Monster, etc. than just about any other grouping in the country...LOL!!!
Wall Street Journal
Look Who’s Irrational Now
By Mollie Ziegler Hemingway
...The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won’t create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that’s not a conclusion to take on faith — it’s what the empirical data tell us.
“What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.
The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion, asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?
The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.
Even among Christians, there were disparities. While 36% of those belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. Barack Obama’s former denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin’s former denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead.
This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener,” skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.
Surprisingly, while increased church attendance and membership in a conservative denomination has a powerful negative effect on paranormal beliefs, higher education doesn’t. Two years ago two professors published another study in Skeptical Inquirer showing that, while less than one-quarter of college freshmen surveyed expressed a general belief in such superstitions as ghosts, psychic healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, clairvoyance and witches, the figure jumped to 31% of college seniors and 34% of graduate students.
We can’t even count on self-described atheists to be strict rationalists. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s monumental “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey” that was issued in June, 21% of self-proclaimed atheists believe in either a personal God or an impersonal force. Ten percent of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in heaven.
On Oct. 3, Mr. Maher debuts “Religulous,” his documentary that attacks religious belief. He talks to Hasidic scholars, Jews for Jesus, Muslims, polygamists, Satanists, creationists, and even Rael — prophet of the Raelians — before telling viewers: “The plain fact is religion must die for man to live.”
But it turns out that the late-night comic is no icon of rationality himself. In fact, he is a fervent advocate of pseudoscience. The night before his performance on Conan O’Brien, Mr. Maher told David Letterman — a quintuple bypass survivor — to stop taking the pills that his doctor had prescribed for him. He proudly stated that he didn’t accept Western medicine. On his HBO show in 2005, Mr. Maher said: “I don’t believe in vaccination. . . . Another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur [germ] theory.” He has told CNN’s Larry King that he won’t take aspirin because he believes it is lethal and that he doesn’t even believe the Salk vaccine eradicated polio.
Anti-religionists such as Mr. Maher bring to mind the assertion of G.K. Chesterton’s Father Brown character that all atheists, secularists, humanists and rationalists are susceptible to superstition: “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense, and can’t see things as they are.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html
How is that germane to post # 10?
Wonderfully cherry picked editorial (opinion, not facts). You should be so proud.
PS In case you're wondering, yes the UCC endorses Darwood's evo-atheist creation myth.
Still has nothing to do with atheists.
If you read Darwin you may see that he didn't think strict biological natural selection was important for us. He thought that social cohesiveness, regardless of physical traits, is what makes one society stronger than another. Specifically, he wrote about "sympathy." The more sympathetic society, the one that helps the weakest among it, will be more socially cohesive and thus will be stronger in the long run.
It's pretty much a direct argument against abortion and eugenics.
For an example, just look at the Christian world. Christian societies are much more sympathetic overall than Muslim ones, and if it weren't for the freak accident of sitting on a gold mine of oil, the Muslim world would still be globally irrelevant. Yet we're not physically superior to them, only socially.
Richard Dawkins has attacked the "old testament G-d" as "arguably the most unsympathetic character in world literature." Did you hear the ADL make a peep? The ADL sees the "old testament G-d" as a "chr*stian" Deity, perhaps personally responsible for the Holocaust.
“Atheists, btw, don’t worship Satan.”
no, but they sure seem to have no problem with those who want to destroy traditional morality. I would love to see a prominent atheist condemn abortion, pre-marital sex and perverted alternative lifestyles but I highly doubt that such a being exists.
Wal-Mart has glasses too (at least the one by me). #20 was a remark about GGG’s ranting in post #19, NOT #10.
“It’s pretty much a direct argument against abortion and eugenics.”
No it’s not because the general problem with evolutionist thinking is that you can use it to explain anything you want and its opposite. It is the theory of que sera, sera.
The proof is in the pudding: the most accomplished evolutionists were and still are strong advocates of abortion and/or eugenics.
That makes no sense.
The proof is in the pudding: the most accomplished evolutionists were and still are strong advocates of abortion and/or eugenics.
People who misused a scientific theory and didn't even bother to read all of Darwin's works. If you believe eugenics is Darwin's fault, then a logically consistent position for you to take would be to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the actions of criminals who commit crimes using guns.
No it’s not because the general problem with evolutionist thinking is that you can use it to explain anything you want and its opposite.
“That makes no sense.”
It is a theory based on rhetorical argument as opposed to other theories that are based on mathematical equations (for example f=ma, e=mc^2, etc). Since it is not based on any firm structure, we are told to simply trust the scientists who support it. But what if they can’t be trusted?
Better snap up a pair of those glasses, I was making light of post #18. It being so close to #19, get two pairs of those glasses, the high magnification ones.
Congratulations, you have established that even Satanic atheists don't worship Satan.
Did you mean to do that?
The thing that amuses me about that study--every time GGG posts it--is that ghosts, precognition and clairvoyance, cryptozoology, and psychic healing are defined as "occult" or "pseudoscience," while angels, 6-day creation, worldwide floods, and the healing power of prayer are apparently defined as "normal." What the study really shows, I think, is that people need to believe in something beyond themselves, and if they reject the approved set, they'll come up with something else.
Cell theory, germ theory, plate tectonics?
But what if they can’t be trusted?
I trust the massive general agreement as it grew up in the absence of corrupting influences. Actually, I don't trust the scientists. I looked at the evidence and found it to be by far the most convincing scientific theory.
I thought those were flying pigs coming out of your @$$
Now how about getting back on topic, eh?
Bingo.. more of that crack from beyond the lunatic fringe...
There are Satanists who worship a literal Satan, and there are Satanists who worship what Satan stands for. Both are Satanic, and both are equally evil. One of my friends back in college tried to convert an atheistic Satanist over to objectivist atheism. This student was part of a Satanic ring on campus, which included several professors. The student told my friend that the atheistic Satanists identify with Satan, and are expected to spend the rest of their lives turning Judeo-Christian morality on its head. This same atheistic Satanist recounted how one of his Satanic professors used to tell him how he hated humanity and his own birth, and used to visualize all his students sitting in front of him as dead men’s bones. BTW, my friend ultimately became a theist as a result of his research in epigenetics! I’m not sure what ultimately happened to the Satanist, but it certainly was an eye-opener. But thanks for bringing it up, for your reply has reminded me to pray for that poor sinner’s sould.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.