Posted on 12/25/2008 7:55:05 PM PST by Soliton
After 10 years and many thousands of replies, I am leaving FR.
I don't really care, and I don't know why anyone else would.
I am leaving before I am banned (again). Truth doesn't seem to matter on FR. I don't know if it is donations or sympathetic opinions that do, but I have been suspended twice when I followed the rules and the people who complained to the moderators didn't, yet the moderators sided with them.
For the record, evolution is a fact and the Shroud of Turin is a fraud. I would prove it if the admin moderators would let me, but they won't. Your resident "expert", Swordmaker won't debate me because he can't.
I will work to build a forum where members have rights and truth matters.
Merry Christmas
Sigh.
1. Name me a Christian or other Creationist of any consequence who has proposed that we change over to a theocracy.
2. Failing that, name me a Christian or other Creationist of any consequence who has proposed that we ban whole scientific disciplines.
3. If you can even provide an example that qualifies for item 1 and/or 2, provide evidence that any significant number of Christians, Creationists or voters of any stripe supported them or took them seriously.
4. Opposing research into a certain field is not the same as opposing science. Sometimes there are excellent reasons to oppose a line of inquiry, such as the arguments against embryonic stem cell research that are based on the inherent ethical problems.
5. Bringing up Galileo is like bringing up the Crusades: No relevance to today's realities. Moreover, given the many contributions to science by devout Christians, it's sort of like a Christian painting every scientist as a Pete Singer clone.
Heck, I even remember reading a story or watching a news cast that featured some nutjub that wanted to stop the LHC from launching, because she believed we were "playing God" or some other such nonsense.
So what? That's the science equivalent of Fred Phelps. Would you judge every Christian by Fred Phelps, or every scientist by Doctor Mengele?
#2 - "Whole scientific disciplines"? Nice qualifier there.
#3 - Any significant number? I'll let the ratings for the 700 Club speak for me.
#4 - Your ethical problems DO NOT dictate what a scientist can do. This is an example of theocracy. If you don't like that research, don't engage in it.
#5 - It is a valid point. How in the world can you claim that Galileo has no relevance to today when you just brought up stem cell research? Woo!
It’s pointless. Some here seem to be here to do nothing but agitate anymore. No doubt they’re having a good laugh over at Darwin Central at all the ‘luddites’ here in this thread. Must be nice to be so easily amused.
DOMINIONISM?
Dominionism?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
You have got to be hosing me, Sparky! There aren't enough Dominionists in this country to fill up a phone booth. They could hold their meetings in one and still leave Clark Kent room to change into Superman!
Using the paranoid rants of a bunch of Canadian lefties was a great touch. Yep, you and the granola crowd in Toronto found us out, we're turning out legions of little stormtroopers at the Christian schools! When it says "gym class" on the schedule, we're really doing drill and showing them how to use truncheons to beat Unitarians into submission--which is an easy task suitable for children, when the great day of revolution comes we'll have the adults beat all the Catholics and Presbyterians into submission.
Oh man, you have actually made me laugh until I hurt. That was good stuff. BTW, I've been a born again Christian for 25 years as of next June and I've never heard of even one of the "leaders of the Dominionist movement" you and your granola buddies have listed in their shocking expose. These people mean exactly squat in American Christianity and American politics, and even if they somehow took over (BWAHAHAHAHA!!) they would have to face the wrath of the other hundred million or so American Christians, who would give them a fair trial followed by first class hangings.
All I can say is I hope you get a good deal on tinfoil, because you sure must use a lot of it! Now, how about you answer the question I asked you:
Do you believe eliminating religion should be a main goal of working scientists?
Pretty easy yes or no answer there.
No doubt they’re having a good laugh over at Darwin Central at all the ‘luddites’ here in this thread. Must be nice to be so easily amused.
I've peeked at he last chapter of the Book. they won't be laughing then.
You guys get offended way too easily. The damn bastard sons of ishmael and the commie heathens have committed more atrocities then anyone can count. My problem is when people forget the once tyrannical roman catholic church.
Excerpt:
The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but the power of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because as a theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law." Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.Reconstructionism has expanded from the works of a small group of scholars to inform a wide swath of conservative Christian thought and action. While many Reconstructionist political positions are commonly held conservative views, what is significant is that Reconstructionists have created a comprehensive program, with Biblical justifications for far right political policies. Many post-World War II conservative, anticommunist activists were also, if secondarily, conservative Christians. However, the Reconstructionist movement calls on conservatives to be Christians first, and to build a church-based political movement from there.
For much of Reconstructionism's short history it has been an ideology in search of a constituency. But its influence has grown far beyond the founders' expectations. As Reconstructionist author Gary North observes, "We once were shepherds without sheep. No longer."
Coyoteman has responded with more tinfoil hat stuff. Gotta love that first paragraph. It’s a hoot!
You should ask yourself what it says about your position if you assume the only reason someone would question them is if they are greatly offended.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a brother of the Faith. I’m more of a individualist, though, I don’t believe I need a priest, rabbi, father, etc. to be the liason between me and God. I tend to think the religions of men are corrupted and not true to the Word.
I guess the self-appointed elite don't like to dirty their hands with the unwashed masses, eh?
Actually, with the liberal bent that most scientists have, it's more like they're a drag ON society.
You guys sure think no small potatoes of yourselves. Scientists dragging society along. What a laugh....
If your way is the way a Christian should operate, why did the writer to the Hebrews say this:
“Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.”—10:25
Why do you object to morals? Many atheists on this forum like to brag about how much moral than believers they are. Well, what are they using for a standard then?
#4 - Your ethical problems DO NOT dictate what a scientist can do. This is an example of theocracy. If you don't like that research, don't engage in it.
Then don't expect us to pay for it either. If scientists want to butcher babies in the name of progress, they can do it on their own dime. Which, for that matter, should be how all scientific research should be done. The government should not be funding scientific research to begin with because there's too little in the way of safeguards to keep politics out of it. It should not be government subsidized elitist welfare.
Not really, religion is an intricate part of true conservatism, read that God’s Law or God’s Morality.
“Truth doesn’t matter?”
That is truth...
And, for anyone interested, it gets WAY better.
And you really believe this load of cr@p?
I don't know what those nutjobs have been smoking, but it must be some really good stuff.
They're putting most conspiracy theorists to shame. All I can figure is that they are projecting big time. They're so worried about what they think Christians are going to do (taking over and mind control and censorship and all) because that's what they would do themselves given the chance.
I’d add to this that to allow no ethics or morality in science research is a scary suggestion indeed. Under CE’s statement that doing so is a theocracy, there is nothing wrong with raising a human in a cage to see what effects a life of cage-life has on the human mind. His absolutist position is ridiculous.
When a majority of people in a democracy believe something should be done a certain way, that is how it gets done, and the fact that some of them got the idea from a holy book doesn't make it theocracy. Theocracy is government by a church or religion, not government by a population whose members tend to go to church.
BTW, are you aware that if we use your standard, any government that does or bans something that is also advocated or proscribed by a religion is a theocracy? For example, my holy book says I shall not murder, not bear false witness and be sure to pay my taxes. My government has outlawed murder, has prison terms for perjury and civil remedies for libel and also requires the payment of taxes. So, wouldn't that be three examples of the people demanding that the government and non-believers act according to our holy book?
"Whole scientific disciplines"? Nice qualifier there.
That's not my standard, it's Coyoteman's. I asked you the same question I asked him about it (to the letter) because you were advancing the same position as him, though admittedly without the raging paranoia. Here's his list of banned disciplines from the thread I referenced earlier:
Geology and archaeology--can't find evidence of the flood. GONE!Astronomy--that big bang stuff. GONE!
Genetics--all those genetic similarities to chimps. GONE!
Radiometric dating--can't get the ages right. GONE!
Biology--all that evilution stuff. GONE!
Paleontology--all those inconvenient fossils. GONE!
With the exception of radiometric dating, everything on that list is a very broad discipline, some of them (such as astronomy) so broad you couldn't get any broader. He says they'll be banned and that it's plain to see from the current positions of leaders in Christian circles. What say you?
Any significant number? I'll let the ratings for the 700 Club speak for me.
What scientific disciplines has the 700 club tried to eliminate? I don't watch, so I may have missed the "call your Congressman and ban metallurgy" campaign.
Your ethical problems DO NOT dictate what a scientist can do. This is an example of theocracy. If you don't like that research, don't engage in it.
Let's see if that holds up, shall we?
Scientist A wants to do research on pain response and recovery rates in humans by cutting parts of the body off his subjects that are relatively easy to heal, say, slicing the last half millimeter of each finger, lopping off a bit of ear. Since he's particularly interested in the response of children, he'll pay parents $5,000 to give permission to allow their child to undergo this without anesthesia.
Scientist B wants to research the endurance and pain tolerance of the two genders. He'll pass electrical current through prisoners of both sexes from a medium security lockup. The experiments are not voluntary, prisoners are chosen at random and are not allowed to decline.
Scientist C wants to do research measuring the pain response of fetuses by shocking them in the womb with electrical current, and amputating the occasional body part.
Scientist D has a theory about trauma effects on various body types. He plans to inflict identical injuries on a series of patients and allow them to bleed out until he estimates they have a 15% chance of recovery. He will then compare actual death rates to body types, gender and race.
Scientist E is studying sexuality in mammals (including humans) and is curious about bestiality. He feels that interviews with humans will not give him the information he needs, so he sets up a lab with various species available and lets a number of zoophiles have at them. Some of the animals may be seriously harmed and experience significant pain in the process, but he'll get some information out of it that will be crucial to his work.
All five of those guys should get to do their research, right? Because any ethical concerns you and I have about them are irrelevant, right?
It is a valid point. How in the world can you claim that Galileo has no relevance to today when you just brought up stem cell research? Woo!
The objection raised to embryonic stem cell research is that it kills a human life. This has a basis not only in religion, but in science. The objection to Galileo had no basis in science or religion.
Either you're arguing that an experiment that kills humans is fine or you're setting up a straw man here, claiming that Christians oppose science when no such thing is true.
See post 418.
I can think of plenty of examples of where a lack of ethics and morality led in scientific research and it ends up being the stuff sci-fi horror movies are made of. Human experimentation comes to mind.....
Did somebody mention embryonic stem cell research?
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.