Brain Food (Amazingthing about Godless is the amount of intellectual meat Ann Coulter has packed...)

The American Prowler ^ | 6/30/2006 | Richard Kirk

[Radix]

I read a certain Herman Hesse book once, maybe twice.

Do I know about Buddha now?

Immorality? What is that?

How can there be immorality in a jungle where only the "fittest" can or will survive?

Are lions immoral for being predators of gazelles?

What is this a PETA thread or something?

[Stultis]

You are not embarassed by the behavior of such consistent evolutionists as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Sanger?

Under Stalin, Darwinists (specifically neo-Darwinists, who embraced Mendelian Genetics, combining it with classical Darwinism to produce the modern form of evolutionary theory) were executed, exiled to the gulags or otherwise persecuted by the thousands. (Google "Lysenkoism".)

Both Hitler, and the Nazi's other principle architect of race theory, Alfred Rosenberg, believed that races were separately created by God.

Don't know that much about Mao and Sanger.

[stands2reason]

I don't think you know what it means to hijack a thread.

[stands2reason]

Since liberals make so many nutty claims themselves I figure this, on balance, is a good thing.

I don't. Those nutty liberal claims drove me straight into the logical embrace of conservatism.

This is not a good time to start that nonsense.

[stands2reason]

I thought you were atheist?

[Stultis]

I see the Evos are here to highjack the thread.

Nice try at whining, lib-style. However Ann devoted a third of her book to the subject, and the reviewer also covered it prominently. Can't put it out of bounds, I'm afraid.

[stands2reason]

Id adds something to the method of arguing with the boy who cried wolf - if you can get him to listen.

Is that some sort of personal invective? Can you not argue the post? He makes a point. I'd like to see someone try to refute it, but if this is the best I'm going to get, I'll concede his point.

[bobdsmith]

Yes sometimes people accept an explaination mainly because they have a desire for it to be true. But alternatively sometimes people accept an explaination simply because it convinces them as an explaination.

[ChessExpert]

You apparently never heard of Buddha.

I expect that RobRoy has heard of Buddha. You may have even shared my belief, when you wrote your words. I could say with equal merit: “You apparently never heard of being polite.”

I’ve heard of Buddha, of course. But if you are an expert, please tell us more. If you believe you can articulate a persuasive basis for morality absent God, that would be a positive contribution. I would be interested in what you have to say.

[Stultis]

Ann Coulter LIVING: "First, talk a live chicken. Smash its little head against the counter..."

"Then, throw the chicken out. Too many calories. Make a salad, dressing on the side. Take a very small bite of the salad (no dressing); throw it out too. Open a magnum of wine and light a cigarette. Your full course dinner is complete!"

[stands2reason]

If people are accidents, then what we do to them doesn't matter.

Your morality is conditional?

[M Kehoe]

Bttt.

5.56mm

[sauropod]

read later

[stands2reason]

Your pastor doesn't know what ToE is or what a scientific theory is. I didn't bother to read his conclusions based on his false premises.

[stands2reason]

Do you think God has a body, and that's what is referred to as "His image" in the Bible? Or do you think it is our eternal souls that are created in His image?

[Stultis]

Why are we here? How was the universe formed? The same "meaning of life" question. My answer: It just is. Simplistic as hell, I know.

No need to apologize. It's a perfectly legitimate answer. In fact every single one of us takes exactly the same attitude toward any number of issues, even objectively important ones, that we don't have the time, need or interest to personally investigate and ponder. Everyone can't care about everything. It's neither productive nor desirable.

Our objection (that is of most FRevolutionists) is not to people having various answers and opinions, but to blatant lies and invidious misrepresentations made to the general public, and the intention to do so in curricula and textbooks as well.

We're going to continue to object to such, but you've no obligation to care or take interest.

[bobdsmith]

As a topic, "darwinism" seems kind of out of place in that book. I am curious whether ann decided to add an evolution section before deciding the book's main theme, or after. I have a hunch that she added the evolution section not because it's an issue she thought was important (she hasn't mentioned it ever before afaik), but because such a religious-political flashpoint issue fit the tongue-in-cheek theme of liberalism being a religion. However I have no idea why she let it take up a whole third of the book.

[stands2reason]

Reason: They really have no answers, but are looking for someone to find a way to prove (scientifically) that God exists and did create the universe.

Who is? Evos or creos?

[stands2reason]

So people only get excited about religion?

[stands2reason]

I can invalidate that argument in one step! ;-)

Janet Reno and her niece Hunter Reno