Posted on 08/09/2002 10:52:13 PM PDT by jennyp
Calling you on this, Patrick. The "native people" were not intentionally starved or liquidated, were they? The intent was not there and your citation is therefore utterly irrelevant. Surely you know this. So why did you post it?
The Nazis were certainly atheists also. But you forget one of the most murderous atheists around by just concentrating on Communists and Nazis. You forget Africa. Remember Idi Amin? Some 4-5 million in a pretty small country. Remember Rwanda a few years back - 2-3 million. The present war in the Congo has killed a few million by itself. Then there is also Somalia with deliberate starvation, there is Nigeria, there is Ghana, and numerous other places in Africa where wholesale murder has been the order of the day since it gained its independence from the 'evil Europeans'.
No. In the Congo, they were worked to death. By the millions.
It's not? You know, since you're flinging condescending insults, why don't you enlighten us with some definitions.
By the way, I think most Christians believe that their faith is Revealed Truth, not the product of a dialectic. But hey, maybe you know better than we do.
In the 20th Century, one complemented the other and they were almost universally found together. 100+ million murders were the direct result. These are documented facts and they are undeniable. They won't be interpreted or wordsmithed away.
One cannot prove anything to those that do not believe in science.
You are right about that. Evolutionists do not believe in science, they believe in atheism. Evolution has always been a joke as science, see my post above regarding Darwin.
Another simple but very relevant fact, and certainly worth repeating, but there are those here who will eat worms before they will admit it. Facts, however, require no admissions.
Lots of problems. For one is the impermanence of such unions. Homosexuals are extremely promiscuos. For another we have the problem of children being adopted by such degenerates. Another problem is the tremendously large percentage of pedophiles amongst homosexuals. You will notice that no homosexual organization has ever attacked LAMBDA the organization which promotes love between adults and young children.
But most important though is that the family is the center of any society and by diluting the benefits of such unions we are encouraging the breakdown of the heart of a good society.
Libertarians would tell you that they have complete sovereignty over their bodies, lives etc, and that the "initiation of force" is the standard by which we know whether or not something is evil.
So, if you had to force a libertarian to be quarantined or to receive a vaccination that may result in them actually contracting the disease (small pox vaccine, like polio vaccine, actually has a small chance of infecting you with the disease and permanently damaging your health), this would be an "initiation of force", would it not?
Well we were talking about materialism were we not? Also, the process does not mean the result is the same, in fact your 'reasoning' in the rest of your post is pure nonsense, and the worst of it is that you think it is quite profound.
Nonsense, Patrick. That's the "everybody does it" argument so cherished by the Clintonoids. And shouting doesn't impress. The central point is, of course, that massive numbers of people died under atheist regimes in the 20th Century. That was patently not true, for example, in the United States, a Christian nation whose citizens have intrinsic individual value and inalienable rights granted to them by their Creator.
Hang around a while and see if Blue is someone you're ready to call a fellow traveller.
In any case, if your logic is valid, my logic is equally valid, as it is of the same form as yours. Why not ask yourself if your conclusion really follows from your premisses?
By the way, I think most Christians believe that their faith is Revealed Truth, not the product of a dialectic.
Dialectics reveals the truth. Just ask Hegel.
I will love to hear it. Also, it is interesting that the evolutionists are coming out for complete immorality and calling it 'good'. Never seen them come out so far out on these threads though I always knew that their hatred for Christianity was due to a love of immorality.
No, they can't, or at least not of the Dawkins or Gould variety.
Take it up with HV - I have, as I said, merely expropriated the argument.
You probably know nothing about evolution except for the propaganda that you have been fed.
Jeez, did you not at least have the courtesy of reading the whole post before responding? I dealt with that Darwinian hopeful math in it also:
Now you can say, but wait if the new trait is extremely useful, then the individual will reproduce much more than the rest and be able to overcome this problem and pass it on to the rest of the species. Problem with that is the theory of evolution itself, that all changes are slow and gradual. Such gradual changes cannot overcome the 50% bias against its being passed on to future generations.
However, you might say, but wait, what if evolution does not work that way, maybe it works the way Gould said and we have sudden changes? We have problems then too. Let's say that a lizard suddenly sprouted wings and learned to fly. Now this is an incredibly favorable change which would surely be spread through the species. Or would it? Would a female lizard want to mate with such a monstrosity? I doubt it. Even more important, due to the extreme genetic changes required in such a transformation, would it even be possible for the female to mate and produce winged lizards? Definitely not. So no, anyway you slice it, these new traits will not be passed on.
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.