Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Being attacked by Militant Atheist Group - Advise?
Yomin Postelnik

Posted on 06/14/2008 8:25:27 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik

Hi everyone,

I'm just wondering if anyone had this experience before. I wrote a column about the proof of the existence of a Divine Creator (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2029192/posts ) and am now getting google stalked by an Atheist Group in Austin, in addition to phone calls and emails.

I'm not going to stop saying/writing what I believe or stop speaking out against these tactics, but was wondering if anyone here had experience and knows what to do about google, etc. I know some of us may disagree on the issues, but I don't think there's much debate about these tactics.

The full story of what happened is available here: http://creationistsearcher.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/on-the-lies-and-harassment-tactics-of-martin-wagner-and-russell-glasser/


TOPICS: Religion; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: antichristian; antitheism; antitheist; atheists; atheistsupremacists; attacks; brownshirts; christianbashing; hategroups; liberalbigots; militantleftists; mythos; persecution; religiousintolerance; solitonhasspoken
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 321-325 next last
To: Kevmo
I see that folks who believe in scientism have a harsh, materialistic, survival-of-the-fittest demeanor that drives many from discussing philosophical implications on this website.

I see the problem as some folks equating religious belief with scientific evidence (Hey, there's a tagline in there!). Because they strongly believe something they don't feel the need to come into a scientific argument with scientific evidence. They use the Answers in Genesis nonsense and think that they are "smiting the evilutionists." Thus we get the "second law of thermal documents" and the like, as well as some very ridiculous arguments.

After a few hundred times explaining the most basic of scientific points, the patience of even the most patient of scientists can run thin.

This would all be avoided if the fundamentalists who have neither an interest in, nor knowledge of science would avoid the science threads.

181 posted on 06/20/2008 11:18:16 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

This would all be avoided if the fundamentalists who have neither an interest in, nor knowledge of science would avoid the science threads.
***Well, the infrastructure is in place for you to have what you want. All you need to do is open a thread with the tag “Scientism” and keep it a caucus thread and it falls under the Religion Moderator’s purview to kick those “smiters” off the thread. You can have some cake; but you’ll have to eat it eventually.


182 posted on 06/20/2008 11:26:37 AM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
You posted one of the absolutely most scientifically ignorant posts of all time on FR and now you are afraid of the response?

Are you one of his harassers?
183 posted on 06/20/2008 11:28:56 AM PDT by Antoninus (Every second spent bashing McCain is time that could be spent helping Conservatives downticket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Well, the infrastructure is in place for you to have what you want. All you need to do is open a thread with the tag “Scientism” and keep it a caucus thread and it falls under the Religion Moderator’s purview to kick those “smiters” off the thread. You can have some cake; but you’ll have to eat it eventually.

Sorry, I do science, not scientism.

And the Religion Mod has ruled that science is not religion. This is correct, as science truly is not a religion.

What I would prefer would be [science] tags in General/Chat which would strongly suggest to those wishing to push a particular religious viewpoint, with no appreciable science content, to post in another thread.

184 posted on 06/20/2008 11:31:11 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
I believe we will be able to produce simple life in a laboratory soon based on the current state-of-the-art biological paractices.

I find your blind faith in science to be impressive. Where do I sign up for your cult?
185 posted on 06/20/2008 11:33:04 AM PDT by Antoninus (Every second spent bashing McCain is time that could be spent helping Conservatives downticket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
If God isn’t necessary to end a life process, why do you think it is necessary to begin it?

That is a particularly weak argument. Intelligence isn't needed to destroy a rolex watch, either. Are you saying one could simply "evolve" at random?
186 posted on 06/20/2008 11:38:14 AM PDT by Antoninus (Every second spent bashing McCain is time that could be spent helping Conservatives downticket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Sorry, I do science, not scientism.
***If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck and it ain’t a goose, it’s probably a duck.

And the Religion Mod has ruled that science is not religion. This is correct, as science truly is not a religion.
***Science may not be, but faith in science is rapidly becoming a religion. Faith is faith.

What I would prefer would be [science] tags in General/Chat which would strongly suggest to those wishing to push a particular religious viewpoint, with no appreciable science content, to post in another thread.
***Yeah, lots of people want their cake and eat it, too. Best of luck to you in excising people from FR science threads who have a “particular religious viewpoint” without the religious moderator stepping in with his existing system. Seems to me the Scientism folks already have that anyways, over at Darwin Central — if ever there was a great example of the demeanor I cited, it’s at DC. It’s a mystery to me why folks come to a website like this that’s “pro-God” and try to remove the “pro-God” folks from their pet projects & threads.


187 posted on 06/20/2008 11:52:09 AM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: js1138

The history and philosophical origins of evolution far predate Darwin.


188 posted on 06/20/2008 4:11:03 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
The history and philosophical origins of evolution far predate Darwin.

Which Darwin?

189 posted on 06/20/2008 4:22:45 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

Which theory of evolution?


190 posted on 06/20/2008 4:29:16 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I have to go for now.

I will bring my citations a little later.


191 posted on 06/20/2008 4:36:07 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

When you saw Darwin, are you referring to Charles or Erasmus?

When you say evolution, are you referring to a general statement that living things change over time, a statement that living things are related by descent, a statement that species branch, a statement that change is gradual and incremental or a statement that change occurs in large jump, a statement that some members of a population produce more offspring and pass their particular differences on at a greater rate than other individuals, or a statement that individuals acquire genetic traits during their lifetime and pass these learned traits on to their offspring?

This is not an exhaustive list, but comes from Ernst Mayr, and is considered a pretty good list of the theories associated with the word evolution.

A clever person will note that each item on the list is independent of the others.


192 posted on 06/20/2008 4:40:47 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

I’m not asking you for citations. I’m just asking you to clarify what you meant.


193 posted on 06/20/2008 4:42:22 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: js1138
There was nothing in your citations/links that established that /evolution sprang from geology/

Your idea that evolutionary thought or theory sprang from geology is incomplete and inaccurate at best.

http://berkeley.edu/history/evothought

http://berkeley.edu/history/evotmline

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no85/evolhist.html#_ednref3

http://queensu.ca/~forsdyke/evolutio

194 posted on 06/20/2008 8:05:45 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

Comment #195 Removed by Moderator

Comment #196 Removed by Moderator

Comment #197 Removed by Moderator

Comment #198 Removed by Moderator

Comment #199 Removed by Moderator

Comment #200 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 321-325 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson