Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
If this were true, I might start listening, however, this statement is a figment of your imagination and is without even a shred of evidence. -YOU
In my original statement above, I was referring to twins. You blast that statement as being a figment of my imagination. So what you are saying is that twins coming from a the same mother is a fallacy? Brother and sister have enormous similarity and similarity of origin is assumed. Man and chimp have far less similarity and therefore it is only theorized that we have a common ancestor, but the similarities are to such an extent that it warrants further investigation. Is it definite? By no means. Is it possible? Yes. Remember the circle and the dot argument that you taught me. Outside of your infinitely small knowledge about the entire universe, there exists great possibility.
Not you. Never. You're very disciplined. [Numerous hugs!]
In the mind of some radicals, Jewish people have no intrinsic worth and should be terminated. The same thinking underscores racism, slavery, etc.
In a materialist or atheist worldview, the best that can be offered is a democratic vote to agree on worth. The hope of survival for detested peoples would rest on the mercy of the majority.
Alamo Girl, I agree with everything except the final statement. There is no contradiction, except for those leaning towards a hatred for atheism, between an atheist and individual rights or worth. I can assign an objective value on life based on life itself. Based on absolute morals as well. Individual freedoms and the right to pursue a happy life are self evident and do not require a supernatural being.
Catholic? whoa. An atheist catholic? (isn't that an oxymoron?) Catholics have a standard for truth - the bible. Catholics believe in objective right and wrong (not subjective). Catholics believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God and arose from the dead on the 3rd Day. What makes you a catholic?
Rationalist? That is the philosophy that man is the measure of all things - you start from man and try to find the unifying answers to our existence (impossible task - can't be done - the best have tried and failed). Without an infinite reference point, rationalism leads to skepticism and finally to despair. The best rationalist thinkers ended up there - Di Vinci, Kant, Hume, Hegel, Nietszche, Sartre.
God is the creator of all things, including the first principles, including love and truth. He is THE standard for all things. He is the potter, you are the clay. Apparently to you, being catholic is a mere association with a building, because you hold absolutely none of the doctrines held by catholicism. Worth is not universal, as we consider people closer to us to be more worthwhile than complete strangers.
You are confusing worth with familiarity. It does not matter if I am close to or love all people. That does not change the fact that people have intrinsic objective value. Your thinking produced such great men as Marquis de Sade, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. If value is subjective, then if I personally feel humans are trash and start slaughtering them, I am right! And Racism is right! Might makes right! You have a bankrupt moral code friend.
Since you are Catholic, it seemed to me that you probably did not mean to imply that you personally believe the value of human life is negotiable.
YOu mean, YOUR definition of science. You are right - it is NOT the school's job - so why do they indoctrinate kids into YOUR religion? Your religion is atheism and that is what they teach kids in 100% of public schools. I will teach MY Kids what I want them to learn, not what the bankrupt and pathetic public schools want to teach them. -exmarine-
So you reject the conclusion below?
--- "the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian lobbying group" ---
---- "said the state should force publishers to offer alternatives, correct mistakes in textbooks and fill in gaps in science teachings. "We are talking about major falsehoods that should be addressed"
Thus, it is fairly obvious that Christian groups are the ones trying to 'indoctrinate kids into religion'.
And, -- that atheism is not the religion of the state. - The state is simply obliged to 'make no law respecting' religion.
Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. It occurs to me that if one were to go to a Astrophysics Symposium as ask participants to discuss their views on the "biological/cosmological theory of evoultion" they would think you were nuts. Similarly, go to a Biology Symposium and ask the same question; the result will be the same.
THe only thing I can figure is that if you go to a Creationist Convention and ask the same question, a hundred people will raise their hands and say "me first!"
This has to be either an incredibly bad misunderstanding on the part of Creationists, or a deliberate strawman they delight in knocking down.
Lastly, has anyone seen this "biological/cosmological theory of Evolution" published in any mainstream peer-reviewed science journal? Does anyone know who first proposed it, and what exactly it says?
OTOH, there IS a well-established theory ABOUT the "evolution" of the Universe...... it's commonly called "Big Bang" Cosmology, but as you know, it has nothing to do with Darwin....
Why should God be excluded? For what good reason? I submit you reject this answer for purely religious reasons.
You take great stock in rationality, so explain how the designers came into being if not directly created by God. Is there more than one God capable of creating life? I am really curious how ID is different from creationism.
I use rationality because God created people as rational beings, giving us the ability to understand His creation so that we can live effective lives. There is only one God. There are not gods. How do I know? Let's use logic on this one too. There are many great religions, but they contradict each other. Christianity says (the bible says) there is one God and that Jesus is God (Triune God); islam says there is one God but He is not triune and Jesus is not God. Both cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense. The Law of Contradiction does not allow it. The only possible answer could be that both are false or ONE is true, however, both cannot be true. In addition, the rational person looks at the evidence for all the religions - which one has the best evidence. Well, hands down - it is Christianity. It is the only one with any evidence to speak of. That's why you never see skeptics challenging the koran or the Hindus bibles or Buddhism - they argue only against Christianity because it is the one with the real evidence. The bible is a historical narrative - it begins from creation, and goes to the end of creation, Jesus is historical, the Apostles are historical, the old testament is historical.
I can assign an objective value on life based on life itself. Based on absolute morals as well.
Indeed you can, B. Rabbit - so can your friend next door. And you can take a consensus, and if you can agree - your government can be merciful and establish human rights - or become embittered and remove such rights.
The counter view is that each person is endowed with rights by our Creator. That means we can't, individually or collectively, take that right from you without facing His wrath. When the people are mostly believers, that threat is much worse than anything mere man can do. Thus, in our form of government - if most people are believers - you, the atheist, can be more secure.
You spent several posts trying to establish separation between ID and creationism. I have asserted all along that they are the same thing. (Remember our little discussion of the attitude of science before "Origin"? By the way, I used the year 1860. You somehow started talking about 1700.
3379: I state that ID and creationism are two different things becauseID does not mention God. ....
Which is it? Is ID equivalent to Creationism or not? Is ID just Creationism trying to masquerade as something else?
No, I do not think that chaos would ensure in a purely atheistic society. OTOH, I do not believe the individuals would be as secure because there would be no ultimate enforcer should their particular race, age, handicap or ancestry fall into disfavor with the state.
Pure faith on your part. - I see no such evidence.
It is the only one with any evidence to speak of. That's why you never see skeptics challenging the koran or the Hindus bibles or Buddhism - they argue only against Christianity because it is the one with the real evidence.
Blind egocentric faith. Skeptics abound for all religion/s.
The bible is a historical narrative - it begins from creation, and goes to the end of creation, Jesus is historical, the Apostles are historical, the old testament is historical.
You claim a degree in history? Oral Roberts U. ?
Very good. You are probably correct, but maybe in a slightly limited way. But this would work with or without the accuracy of the beliefs. You are almost arguing (and I hope I do not offend) that religion serves the purpose of controlling a population by instilling fear in them! This fear will exist with or without the actual existence of a God, no?
I don't think uses that exact phrasing, but it certain brings all of it together and has a strong proponent, Francis Crick - one of the discoverers of the double helix. More on the subject can be found at Cosmic Ancestry
But my thoughts are not random, and you perceive meaning in them. They may be worthless (and some would consider them to be); however, you have assigned enough value to them to answer them.
So, why should I listen to you?
That's your prerogative.
I have my own random impersonal material mental processes.
But your communications of those thoughts (and by extension the thoughts themselves) are not random or impersonal. You seem to think that if God is not controlling your thoughts then your thoughts
Thus, no one person's thoughts can possibly be superior to another's.
It all depends upon what value you assign a particular individual's opinion.
All you can do is keep repeating your same mantra - "value is subjective" because logically you lose every time.
If value is objective, it should be a measurable property of an object. All measurements of value so far proffered have so far been subjective. Logically, I consider this position unassailable.
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.