Posted on 02/28/2005 4:06:35 AM PST by beaversmom
TV comedian Bill Maher has provided new proof that today's secularists display far less tolerance, and far more fanaticism, than their counterparts among people of faith.
On MSNBC, Maher baldly declared: "We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion . I think it justifies crazies I think religion is a neurological disorder The future does not belong to religion."
Even those who share Maher's left-leaning politics must recognize that religious celebrities who railed against non-believers in similar terms would face an avalanche of criticism. Imagine the reaction if James Dobson suggested, "atheism is a neurological disorder!"
Of course, religious leaders seldom denounce non-believers as "sick" since they hope to encourage their faith and millions of uncommitted Americans have indeed recently embraced traditional religious practice.
The ongoing, undeniable revival in Bible-based Christian and Jewish families gives the lie to the unmarried and childless Maher's smug declaration that "the future does not belong to religion."
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
No flat earther here Shub, just someone amused by the vagaries of OCD.
OCD is sometimes better termed passion for the cause of truth. In this case, you might give a diagnosis of
nuerological damage causing retardation in creationists.
Or possibly some just have a reading disorder that allows
them to only understand the Bible in the most simplistic terms imaginable, meanwhile accusing others of not being Christian because THEY think the Bible is meaningful in profound ways.
Fo-Foe, you've got your facts, they've got theirs. It ceased being about the truth a long time ago.
It has devolved (damn, I crack myself up sometimes) into a pissing contest to establish who is smarter - which, incidentally, does nothing to advance the Gospel of Christ.
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power. 1 Corinthians 2:4-5
Creationists have harmed the Gospel by putting in requirements for salvation (or at least making it appear like there are requirements) beyond the Gospel.
Creationism is apostasy.
You recognize your superiors, I see.
But they have advanced. You must have missed the constant stream of them walking upright out of the jungles, shaving, putting on a suit and running for some Democratic political office.
Oh wait...running as/being a democrat is not advanced.
Creationists have harmed the Gospel by putting in requirements for salvation (or at least making it appear like there are requirements) beyond the Gospel
Creationism is apostasy <=== You mean like requiring that they believe what you do in order for them to pass muster?
Fo-foe, my very first interaction with you revolved around removing the plank from your own eye. You haven't made any progress.
I'm sure Darwin thought dogs were a different species than wolves. In modern times we know from our examination of their DNA that they are, in fact, the exact same species.
Give us something better than the puppies.
Your lack of understanding of biological processes does not necessitate me spending time explaining the inanity of your opinions.
Hmmmm... maybe you shouldn't talk, seeing how you are attempting to attack the man rather than offerring any coherent arguments other than misinterpretations of Scripture.
You have to have a much better example than that, and anyone who claims to have in depth knowledge of biological systems who doesn't know the difference between selective breeding as conducted by humans and natural selection definitely needs to go back to school.
Nope, not me.
Here is the whole text of Darwin's Origin of Species. It has more than just dog breeding in it. Why argue with me, when you can look at the reasoning at its source?
Knock yourself out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
A large amount of change in our cultivated plants, thus slowly and unconsciously accumulated, explains, as I believe, the well-known fact, that in a vast number of cases we cannot recognise, and therefore do not know, the wild parent-stocks of the plants which have been longest cultivated in our flower and kitchen gardens. If it has taken centuries or thousands of years to improve or modify most of our plants up to their present standard of usefulness to man, we can understand how it is that neither Australia, the Cape of Good Hope, nor any other region inhabited by quite uncivilised man, has afforded us a single plant worth culture. It is not that these countries, so rich in species, do not by a strange chance possess the aboriginal stocks of any useful plants, but that the native plants have not been improved by continued selection up to a standard of perfection comparable with that given to the plants in countries anciently civilised.
Darwin, Origin of Species Ch1
I thought you might like to see a paragraph from Origin, so that you might decide to actually read the whole book, rather than speculate on what it might contain on puppies.
Darwin didn't have a clue regarding the mechanism of inheritance. Why would I want to go back and re-read something that in light of today's science is a tad dated.
In fact, the greater part of it was given over to his condemnation of dark skinned folks who didn't live like "civilized" people in the salons of London.
Are you trying to tell us that Darwin also came up with fascism, or what?
And what is it you are trying to tell the rest of us?
Uh huh, sure.... I didn't really expect you to want to read any science. Speaking of not having a clue...
If you can't understand the import of the paragraph, it demonstrates you don't understand science. The meaning of the Darwin's reasoning is clear.
Nice try at obfuscation. Do creationists have any shame?
DNA exists. Our genome has some that clearly came from our ancesters, all the way back, and some that was acquired from different branches of life via infection, or even other, but unknown processes.
Then there's the dog/wolf problem. A dog is a wolf, but all the "natural selection" has been supplanted with "human selection".
Like I said, it's time for you guys to give up on using "intelligent design", also known as "human selection" to explain "natural selection". Certainly there's some other group of species out there where such explanation is possible ~ maybe some kind of bugs! Should be trivial, eh?!
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.