Better Duck Huck! The Media Loves You.
The Headline reads:
Holy Huckabee. The Unlikely Rise of a Preacher Politician.
On the surface it looks like the mainstream digs a man who talks about his faith.
Don't buy it Huck!
The good Governor has spent a lot of time talking about his faith.
When you are THAT fiscally liberal and THAT disengaged on foreign policy you'd better talk about something, afterall.
But the fact is Huck may be getting too much of what he asks for. How long do YOU think the mainstream will let him get away with his strict Creationsit views? (Even I can barely hold my tongue).
No. This is a trick. Huck is THE candidate the Libs want because they will crush him like a flower come General Election time. Sorry gang. This isn't 1976 when the American media tolerated outwardly religious guys. This man will be portrayed as the biggest backwoods bohunk to ever hit the circuit and he's got a ton of molehills that will easily be made into mountains.
If Huck is your guy, support him for something more than his faith. You'll help him.
For a preview of how the Left--which owns the media--will attack Huck, read this biting (but kinda entertaing) piece on him in Rolling Stone.
Even Huck's pardoning of Keith Richards, love of taxes, and liberal immigration policy don't buy him a pass from this magazine, which portrays him as a greedy, God loving, Taco Bell scarfing, Right Wing pig.
Huckabee would be only slightly worse than Willard Romney. Not only has Huck demonstrated that he is scientifically illiterate, he has made statements indicating he does not believe it is important for a president to even understand science.
We need leaders who make decisions based on good evidence and analysis, not based on superstitious rituals and magical thinking. He believes an angel intervened on a recent hunting trip he was on. This is the 21st century folks.
Do we want a leader with the ability to evaluate evidence and use his reason, or do we want one that consults bronze-age myth books and consults an imaginary specter in the sky?
Reply to this
Much of the political world's attention in recent days has been focused upon Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama and how he might benefit from the so-called "Oprah Effect." Conversely, little attention has been paid to the impact of the "Okra Effect" -- that is, until now.
During the last weekend of September, Republican presidential candidates traveled to Irmo, S.C., to participate in the Okra Strut , an event described in a Boston.com article as "a parade and festival celebrating the slimy green vegetable so beloved in the South."
While some might scoff at the notion of the Okra Effect, I do not. Why not? Because I've analyzed events that have transpired during the two and a half months since the Okra Strut took place.
For instance, the above-referenced article, among other things, included a statement that Rudy Giuliani was looking at South Carolina as a springboard to win Florida on Jan. 29. Apparently, the former New York City mayor's board has lost some of its spring since then as Real Clear Politics shows Rudy leading the Palmetto State GOP race in only one of five polls.
The article included a mention of Fred Thompson as a native Southerner, popular actor, and former senator from Tennessee, is aiming to jump-start his campaign by sweeping the South, with South Carolina a virtual must-win. And he's still waiting. A Real Clear Politics poll average today shows Thompson in a virtual third-place tie with Giuliani.
Mitt Romney was said to have spent more time and money in the state than Giuliani. After spending that much money (and missing the Okra Strut due to a brief illness), the former Massachusetts governor finds himself mired in second place.
And, finally, the article gave mention to Mike Huckabee as a Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor who has drawn some excitement from evangelicals and conservative activists, but remains far back in the polls and fund-raising. Since then, however, Huckabee has surged into first place in South Carolina.
An Associated Press article four days ago might help explain his rise in popularity.
Huckabee is quoted as saying, "Carrots. I just don't like carrots. I banned them from the governor's mansion when I was governor of Arkansas because I could." Nowhere in the article, however, does one find Huckabee expressing any disdain for the slimy green vegetable to which he might owe his success.
That's why, I think it's safe to conclude, that this one-time long-shot candidate does indeed owe his success to something -- most likely, the Okra Effect.
I won't be surprised if his campaign rallies begin to feature segments during which throngs of Huckabee supporters chant a new slogan, "All Hail Okra!™"
Reply to this
Back for some more drive by huh bob? I thought you were going to pollute some other sites bob... too much fun here huh bob?
Reply to this
Robert,
There is an old saying throughout the military. It goes; There are no atheist in foxholes.
Other than that I really have nothing to say to your closed-minded ranting. I would think that Americans would like a man that has his faith and beliefs that we (America in case you forgot were you live) are the defenders of freedom.
I am by no means anywhere close to the Christian that Gov. Huckabee is but to insult his beliefs (and billions around the world) is just what we don't need. If all you can find wrong with Gov. Huckabee is his religion then I say outstanding.
If there is one this country could use is a little more religion. The pornification of our culture is disgusting and insulting to everything I have fought for!
So I say to you sir, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Reply to this
sarge #2 You are to kind to bob.And thank you for your service
Reply to this
Thank you for your service.
Your old saying is easily falsifiable, Pat Tillman being the most obvious example that came to mind.
I think you completely missed the point of my post.
Let's say the president wants to determine whether a particular country is a threat to the US. One option would be to gather evidence and analysis of that country's military assets. Another option would be to consult a ouija board. Or perhaps you could read tea leaves or consult a psychic.
If you, like me, think option one is better, than Huckabee is probably not the best choice.
Reply to this
....It is easy for us to miss the point of your posts bob
Reply to this
Robert, I would like to disagree a little on your comment. It IS smart strategy to gather evidence and analyze a particular country's military capacity whein it comes to it's ability as a threat to the US. But, in times of non-conventional conflict (terrorism style tactics), a country can not rely soley on a country's military capability as a measuring tool becuase a lot of these attacks and tactics are carried out in the non-conventional manner. The attacks of 9/11 are a prime example of this. We know, from years of sound evidence and analysis, that Afghanistan was the haven for al qaeda and their allies. Militarily, Afghanistan posed no threat at all to the US. But, in a non-conventional scenario, anyone could carry out attacks against the US or any other country for that matter. Look at London bombings in '05. I think that saying the US needs to base it's strategy on military analysis and capabilities is making it way too simple. It goes so much deeper than that.
If the US based it's foreign policy strictly on that basis, is there really any country out there, other than Russia, that poses a military threat to the US? Probably not. But there are threats out there and we need to be keenly aware of them.
Reply to this
Robert,
Appreciate the props for the service and you too Wayne.
Now,Pat Tillman left a great career as a pro football player and joined the United States Army because he felt a sense of service to a greater good. Were do you think that came from? No I am not saying you have to be a Christian to be a good American but it doesn't hurt either.
My saying is falsifiable? How many foxholes have you been in?
You dare to compare Jesus Christ to a board game and tea leeves!! I don't mind people disagreeing/not believing in the same things as me but, I do take offense to individuals who insult it. Again you and your Liberal counterparts speak of freedom of speech,religion and all of our freedoms until it is something you find "illogical" and or stupid or uneducated.
As for a president that would use evidence and professional analysis to make a decision you are correct. That is why the president appoints the best people possible to his cabinet positions. What I don't want is a president that would take action because he might offend someone.
Reply to this
Oh it's atheist Bob again....
Bobert I have come to the realization that it's not the fact that you don't believe in God but you go out of your way to berate and spew hates towards thoughs that do. You not believing in a god is not even the issue. It's the fact that you're..just an asshole.
What drives one to come to this forum and immediately start with the insults and offenzive language to beleivers?
If you don't beleive in God that's your business Robert. You will try and justify your crude comments with all your fluffy words and reasoning, but it's all the same bullshit and not really a trait of an atheist but rather the trait of a shallow asshole... I know plenty of atheists and I have not had one spew the garbage you do.... Get a life and go to some lefty site or some Star Trek site and rub ass with some of your little science buddies....Think before you speak Robert...Because if you have come here to stir up your little world hating fantasies, you're going to lose everytime....
Can you not carry on conversation without trashing folks????
I think you are just mad at God Robert...I know someone just like you.... If you are...don't take it out on everyone else...
Thx LTL
Reply to this
I knew you would find my ouija board and tea analogy jarring, and that is the whole point. You are appalled by the notion that someone would rely on such nonsense to help make a decision.
You should realize that is the same reaction many of us have when we hear candidates claim they talk to their god to help make decisions. From an objective viewpoint, looking at tea leaves and praying are empirically the same. That is, we have no evidence that such behavior will provide useful information. None. Zero.
Yes, yes you have faith that praying will help. Many others have faith that the tea leaf method will work. Why do you consider one valid and the other nonsense?
Reply to this
Conserva-giant,
You have completely missed the point. I was proposing a hypothetical for the purpose of starting a discussion about what is the best METHOD to use to make decisions.
If I want to know whether it's raining outside, what is the best method to use? I could go outside and look, I could find last weeks newspaper and see what the prediction for today was, or I could pray to Zeus to give me the answer.
I'm talking about method. Ways of knowing. Evidence.
Reply to this
Hello Lt.,
I find it odd that you accuse me of spewing hate and so forth. I encourage you again to review my posts and find any example of hate. I wish you would refrain from your scatological language.
Here is the deal: for most of your life, people like me have remained silent. We have had these thoughts about superstitious beliefs but for the most part have remained silent. Those days are over.
Do you believe in the free exchange of ideas? Why do you want my viewpoint silenced?
Reply to this
Robert,
You are such a psuedo self proclaimed bag of scientific hogwash... People will always act within reason and search for evidence in making a decision..it's our nature to gather all the reassurance we can before making any decision..... We pray to God to give us strength in our decison making process and that it gets the results intended....
Pack up you little Mattel Science kit and try again Robert.
Thx LTL
Reply to this
I think using prayer or meditation is fine in order to gain reassurance or to help consolidate your ideas.
However, my point is that many leaders go way beyond that. Here's George Bush in 2003:
"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."
And now we know that George Bush had no knowledge of the Sunni/Shia factions of Islam as well as lack of knowledge concerning many many other things. My point is that I want a president who takes the time to know these things. I want a president who values evidence.
Reply to this
Robert,
I don't mind hearing your views? I didn't mind at all of Jamie posting on Hitchens. I can deal with people of all religions and atheists alike, provided they treat each other where repsect is deserved..
If you cannot figure out what you have said to offend folks here? You might want to go back to the Hitchens post and see where the bickering began...
Why do you think that last weekend on that post that there are 69 entries??? Because your are condescending with your words...People felt compelled to respond. If you can't see that.. there is no sense in going any further.
Religion, people hold dear Robert and when you attempt to minimize it or belittle it, you will get this kind of feed back.
You thoughts are welcome here, just change your approach and I bet you will find better results and a bit more perception to civil argument.
If you are unable to see my point then I can't change the response you will get from the people here at BMA.
Thx LTL
Reply to this
Hey Robert, you need to thank your lucky stars for the superstitious who built our unique, wonderful country.
Jews for Christmas
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/18/145204.shtml
Never in history, not until America, did a people overwhelmingly of one religion ever conquer a continent and then turn around and invite the world to “Come on over and help us make this place great!” And while they were at it, they made sure every newcomer was free to worship God in his chosen way.
If the emcee at a brotherhood banquet said that and then said, “Let’s hear it for those Christians who started this particular America!” would you fail to applaud?
I feel like a draft-dodger merely voting for those who’d like to see the restoration of the American Christmas and then merely hoping they prevail. I want to say to the American Christians:
“Hey, fellows. You all relax. We non-Christians owe you one. From the birth of this American republic you’ve made sure WE have every right to religious freedom. You Christians deserve to sit this one out. WE who have been the beneficiaries of your enlightened governance now want to go out and fight and win this one for you.”
There’s a good tactical reason for those of every religion other than Christianity to get behind the Christians. The target of the assailants isn’t just Christmas. Study their intensity. Study their persistence. They’re, in too many cases, downright anti-Christian and anti-faith itself.
The “Church-State” mantra is merely their non-holy smokescreen and anti-Christmas carol. If we let them succeed in humbling the dominant religion in America, how much longer do you think the rest of us will be able to be ourselves out loud?
Large numbers of my fellow Jews recoil from my Jewish bow toward the Christians. “OK,” goes the refrain, “they got here before we did and they outnumber us. So what. It’s OUR country, too.”
I say to them: “Damn right, it’s our country, too. But American Christians don’t need you to tell them that. The reason it’s our country, too, is because their Christian forefathers demanded that it be so. They were telling YOU it’s your country, too, while your great-grandfather was hiding your grandmother in the hayloft while her sisters were being raped by drunken Cossacks in Minsk.”
Look around at the America the Christians gave us. And look around at the America we’re giving them. The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s newsletter offers a one-liner that clears out clogged passages in the brain: “It is a country in which plastic likenesses of Jesus are banned, but pedophile public school teachers are not.”
Reply to this
Lt:
Yes I understand your point, and it is currently a hotly debated topic among people like me. What is the best method to encourage rational thinking?
My way not be right. I just don't know. But the more I think about it, I think my method will lead to a better world, although it will cause many people temporary discomfort and embarrassment.
This is a short video where two very prominent scientist discuss this issue. Please watch it, it's really funny, stay to the end. The first speaker is making exactly the point you are making.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
Reply to this
Huckabee will not be getting my vote because of his stance on illegals. And because people like myself want to protect the sovereignty of my nation, he thinks I am racist or nativist. Damn right I'm nativist.
Here he was speaking in front of LULAC, a racist open borders hispanic group -
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/06/30/News/323746.html
White guys fast becoming a minority, Huck? Why do you think that is, Huck?
My grandmother came over here after the first world war, had to 'decontaminate' on Ellis Island, and once in legally, had to work, learn English, or leave. She nor my in-laws, who came after the second world war, was ever offered/given or wanted handouts, were expected to learn the language, and get jobs. AS IT SHOULD BE.
Perhaps we should start screaming that because they were white, they weren't given special treatment and thus, they were discriminated against and demand reparations.
These bleeding heart, pandering, sell-out politicians do not get it. Actually, I think they do but they don't care for nothing but votes.
Reply to this
Hi Annie,
Yes, I am thankful for the religious toleration we have in this country. Also, I don't think I properly acknowledged a point you made in another thread.
You pointed out the vital role Christianity played in the development of Western Civilization, which in turn led to the enlightenment and the current explosion of technology and knowledge all of us are fortunate to be witnessing. I think your point was correct.
I have never said everything about religion is bad. It may be that our species would never have gotten to where it is now without religion. A prominent atheist and evolutionary biologist named
David Sloan Wilson has written extensively about the vital role religion plays in human happiness and progress. I need to dig deeper into this idea.
Nevertheless, although your point and Wilson's theory may be correct, neither one is evidence whatsoever that any particular religion is true. If this point is not clear, please search "The fallacy of final consequences" to learn more about it.
Reply to this
bob, it's you we dont find valid
Reply to this
12/12/2007 1:16 PM Robert wrote:
I knew you would find my ouija board and tea analogy jarring, and that is the whole point. You are appalled by the notion that someone would rely on such nonsense to help make a decision.
You should realize that is the same reaction many of us have when we hear candidates claim they talk to their god to help make decisions. From an objective viewpoint, looking at tea leaves and praying are empirically the same. That is, we have no evidence that such behavior will provide useful information. None. Zero.
Yes, yes you have faith that praying will help. Many others have faith that the tea leaf method will work. Why do you consider one valid and the other nonsense?
You talk as if a man praying and asking his god for advice is an act of insanity. Well there are alot of morale questions that arise in politics. Morales!! Something your scientific views do not teach. I some tribe in the Andes can get morales from tea leaves then so be it. At least they can accept that humans are not the answer to everything.
Do not try to talk to me like you are on the morale high ground because you think you can answer everything with science. In my eyes you cannot have religion w/o science and vice-a-versa. Where do you think science comes from? Did some tree billions of years ago take a crap and all of a sudden science was there. Oh no wait there was an explosion. My bad.
I'm just sick and tired of you left wing liberal moonbats trying to talk to me like I am some kind of idiot. You can leave your life your way and I'll live it mine. You see going back to the pres it's a majority rules election. (supposedly)
Reply to this
Oops I forgot to Quote what Rob wrote. It ends at after the 3rd paragraph ending with the word nonsense. everything after is me.
Reply to this
Encourage rational thinking????
Just that statement alone proves my point.
The respect and appreciation of science apparently creates people void of politeness and void of tact??
Do you consider science a religion???
How is it that you feel the need to encourage your way of thinking??
Thx LTL
Reply to this
So do you acknowledge that from an objective viewpoint consulting tea leaves and praying to Jesus are equally valid?
(I'm not asking which one you personally believe to be better.)
I'm just wondering if you agree that neither method can be proven better or worse than the other.
Reply to this
Science is a method used to gather information and explain the world. It's not perfect, but it usually delivers the goods.
Religion traditionally involves faith in something supernatural. The scientific method is not a religion.
Reply to this
As I said, if tea leaves helps someone teach thier moral decisions then so be it. I don't have to agree with it. I'm not saying their is no such thing as science. I'm just asking you were do you think science came from? A magical tree or a higher being? Which one is more "beleiveable" to you. Trust me, if a president told me that we were going to war because when he saw Jesus in his mashed tators and gravy he told him to. Then we got problems. A manseeking moral guidance from a higher being to me is an acceptance in humility. If I need to to find out the cosine of a right triangle's hypotenuse is I'm not going to ask God. I'll use a calculator.
Reply to this
Bob,
Either you're wrong or I am wrong. The way I look at it is, what is the worst that can happen if I'm wrong? Well, I lived my life praying for others, praying for peace, praying for good health, and asking for forgiveness of sin. I've spent my life trying to be as good a person as I can be while dedicating my whole heart and soul to Christ. I've accepted Christ as my savior and look forward to salvation with Him. Now, what's the worst that could happen if you're wrong? Well... it's not as rosy an outcome.
Either way, one of us is right and one of us is wrong. I'm satisfied either way. Are you?
Reply to this
So do you only trust the scientists that are atheists???
Thx LTL
Reply to this
I like this answer very much. We share common ground. I have no problem whatsoever with this type of moral guidance seeking. It's not for me personally, but I do not think it is insane.
You have asked me how I account for science or morality. I think the first question is much easier to answer so I will start with the hard question.
We all understand self sacrifice for our close family. All of us will take risks to prevent the suffering of those we love. Also, we will self sacrifice for the purpose of making our loved ones happy. This is explained when we realize we are all gene machines for the purpose of ensuring the survival of our genes. We will do anything to ensure the survival of our children because they carry so many of our genes.
So how to explain the self sacrifice of an atheist like Pat Tillman?
For most of human history, our species existed in small bands or tribes made up of a few dozen to a few hundred. Everybody we knew very likely shared many of our genes. It is in the best interest of our genes that we behave well to those we meet, because they are so likely to share our genes.
This propensity to be kind and help one another is an emergent property of the human mind as a result of our long tribal history. In some of us, this natural tendency even extends to those who are very unlikely to share many of our genes. Similarly, other people have unfortunately retained another natural tendency: they fear and hate people who are different. They do not mind when a hundred brown skinned people die, but are horrified when someone that looks like them is killed.
The US military is brilliant at co- opting this emergent property of young mens minds. The military engenders comradeship so that soldiers will fight hard not for some esoteric idea, but for the man at their side.
At the heart of morality is prevention of suffering and the nurture of happiness. We are no longer tribal, but we can embrace our natural morality, and co-opt it beyond it's original purpose.
Reply to this
Please consult refutations of Pascal's Wager. I handled it in another thread, and don't need to be repeat it.
Reply to this
I have spent my whole life trying to be as good a person as I can while dedicating my life to nurturing good health and happiness in humanity and for the prevention of suffering. I have very good evidence that teaching a man to read will help him much more than praying that he will learn on his own. You do your praying, while I will do some work.
If I am wrong then I will be tortured in hell forever by your loving God. However, I see no evidence of this hell you fear so much.
I see plenty of evidence that there are people that can use my help. I'll take the risk and help them. You keep praying. Who is more moral?
Reply to this
Robert,
Do you only trust scientists who are atheists???
Thx LTL
Reply to this
No. Many great scientists and thinkers are also religious. I don't understand how they are able to partition their minds, but they seem to pull it off.
I have a personal example. I have and had a very influential mentor. He is smart and analytical and rational and just a great role model for people in my profession. But he was also so superstitious! He's always knocking on wood or talking about the full moon or some other nonsense. I just found it so bizarre.
So no I do not think religious beliefs or superstitious beliefs would make someone incompetent to be president. I guess what is important is how operative those beliefs are in day to day decision making. We all should be horrified that the Reagan's regularly had psychics in the White House to consult with. Did Ronnie ever use their advice to take action? I doubt it, but I would rather that goofiness just not be on the table.
Reply to this
astrologers, not psychics (as if it matters)
Reply to this
Robert, I think you are mislead in your view of religion and religious people here. I was born into a Catholic family, raised Catholic and am a practicing Catholic. I was always taught that we are to treat others as we ourselves would want to be treated. The foundation of the faith is rooted in love, kindness and charity towards our fellow man. To paint us in a broad stroke as selfish zombies who only pray that things will get better and doing nothing about it is blatantly dishonest. That is not what Christianity is about at all. I think you need to get your facts straight on this religion thing.
I think you will find that religion and science indeed have more in common than what we are debating here. I don't ever recall being taught that religion and science were in conflict with each other. Just the opposite as a matter of fact. Science and the ability to reason, learn and think freely are gifts given to us. So there really is no conflict in my mind at all.
I don't think you or anyone can say that everything that comes out of science and the application of the scientific method is inherently good.
My faith has never been in conflict with medical science in general. We always seek healthcare advise from a doctor, spiritual advise from a priest. The Catholic faith wants it that way and has never taught it any other way. They are only in conflict with certain practices that they deem immoral or contrary to doing what's best for humanity, example...abortion. That's a whole topic for another day. Anyway, point being, the basic tenants of my religion certainly agree with your non-religious veiws. We both want peace, harmony, to give help where needed, to prevent suffering, etc. Humanity has free-will and the Catholic faith teaches that free-will is a basic right all people are born with and should never, ever loose. They don't want you to loose that free will, they just want you to use it in a good and moral way. There is "right" and there is "wrong" and knowing the difference between the two will only help us when making decisions on how we interact and can effect other people.
I think we agree more than you think we do. Why the hostility towards us religious folks? I'm not a zombie. I'm a reasonable person whos faith is a reasonable one at that.
The thing about God is this: science can not prove that He does not exist. I can not prove that He does. But I believe in Him, that's why they call it faith. You believe in science and the scientific method, but do you really undersatnd all of that scientific mumbo-jumbo? Probably not, but you have "faith" that what they are telling you they discovered is true. It's no different than mine.
Reply to this
"The foundation of the faith is rooted in love, kindness and charity towards our fellow man."
I think that is certainly the central theme of the teaching of Jesus. Most educated and sophisticated Christians would agree with that I hope.
Unfortunately, much of the history of the various Christian religions taught something very different. Few people know the story of William Tyndale, who was executed by Church authorities for the awful crime of translating the New Testament into English. Do you think they were following the teachings of Jesus?
Similarly, too many Christians today, particularly evangelicals, see the central message of Jesus to be this: believe in me and you will be rewarded in heaven forever. If you don't, I will torture you in hell for all eternity.
In my opinion, that is a vile doctrine, and would be an immoral thing to teach a child. It panders to the most base human instincts. Many people on this board have expressed this idea, as well as the joy they feel when thinking about non-Christians suffering for eternity.
I will give you an example of what I believe is a great example of the inherent conflict between science and religion. To me, this is a clear moral question.
Consider stem cells. You have a clump of cells in a petri dish. This clump of cells does not have a brain or a nervous system. A thing without a nervous system cannot suffer or feel joy.
On the other hand, you have a little girl who will die without a bone marrow procedure made possible by using the stem cells.
In my mind, this is a clear moral question. Since morality is based on human suffering and happiness, we should save this little girl with the stem cells, which would have been thrown in the garbage anyway.
I realize many people think the clump of cells has a "soul", and they are offended by my proposal. Here is where science and religion conflict. There is NO GOOD REASON TO THINK there is such a thing as a soul. None. Claiming the existence of the soul is magical thinking. It's a fairy tale.
I don't want little girls to die because of a fairy tale.
Reply to this
Bob,
Now you're assuming I choose prayer over action. I choose both. Not only do I pray for people, but I also volunteer my time to help my fellow man as well as making monetary donations to a variety of charities. And, since most of the charitable donations made in this country are through religious organizations, I think it's safe to say I'm not the only one. But, if making wild assumptions makes you feel better, then shoot for the moon.
So sorry to burst your "I'm more charitable than you are" defense. It is wonderful that you are charitable to your fellow man but, being charitable and giving is only one part of salvation. The Bible is very clear that salvation only comes to those who accept Christ as their savior. Being "moral", as you put it, is only part of what God expects from us.
What would it take for you to believe?
Reply to this
"You believe in science and the scientific method, but do you really understand all of that scientific mumbo-jumbo? Probably not, but you have "faith" that what they are telling you they discovered is true. It's no different than mine."
You are correct in a way about this. I cannot independently test and verify all the scientific things I accept to be correct. I would use the word 'trust' rather than 'faith'. I think my trust in the scientific method is completely different than someone's faith in a god.
The scientific method delivers the goods. It put a man on the moon. It created the internet. It created the smallpox and polio vaccines. Do I understand all the details of quantum mechanics and nuclear fission? Hell no, but I've seen pictures of Hiroshima. Do I understand all the details of stealth technology and aerodynamics? No, but I've seen a B2 bomber fly over my head. The scientific method delivers the goods, and it hardly takes faith to believe that. I can experience physically with my senses the fruits of science. It surrounds all of us everyday.
When I look at religion, I see thousands of versions with all the adherents equally sure their sect is right and all those other sects are wrong. It's a different sort of thing to believe in a particular religious sect than to believe in the scientific method.
Ask a scientist anywhere in the universe: What are the fundamental forces? The answer will always be the same . . . electromagnetism, gravitation, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Ask a thousand theologians to describe the nature of god, and you will get a thousand different answers.
Reply to this
Tracy:
I would have to have some kind of experience. A road to Damascus of my own.
You presented a false dichotomy before when you said either I was right or you were right. We could both be wrong of course. Maybe God only sends Zoroastrians to heaven and the rest of us are doomed to hell. Or maybe God values scientific thinking above all else, and views faith as the greatest sin of all. In that case, all atheists would go to heaven and all Christians to hell.
How is it that you rejected all the other religions? There are so many thousands, it would take a lifetime to learn them all and pick the one that seemed the best. And even after all that, you would still have to realize that if only one was the right one, based on statistics alone you will probably burn in hell.
Reply to this
Robert,
Why do you suppose that people of religion far out number the atheists??
The whole key to this entire argument is faith and lack of faith....
When I walk outside I cannot imagine how anyone could claim there is not a God... Nature and how it all works so well together, so finely balanced..Every fiber of nature is so perfectly made to compliment the other.
The plants and animals all in some shape or fashion contribute to the survival of the other...
I look at my children and know in my heart there is a God...
How do you explain love scientifically Robert????
You look at the all these things and base it on science....
To me Robert... things are much to beautiful and perfectly joined in this world to be a scientific accident...
It alls seems to perfected and a creation in my eyes....
I apprecaite the world of science Robert, it was one of a couple subjects I tuned into in school...I love the science channel. But as much as I apprecaite science and the wonder of the human mind.... the human mind in and of itself to me seems to be so intricate and incredible, that it also seems to be a great creation....
It's all very deep Robert...but there are a couple elements of the human make up that seem infinately based on a creator and not science.....I.E. Love, Compassion, Joy...
I don't mean to go all Maya Angelou on everyone.... but it is truly amazing...
Thx LTL
Reply to this
I have the same feelings of wonderment and awe that you do. The improbability of my own existence and self consciousness drops my draw daily. The enormous size of the universe, and the unfathomable smallness of a quark. (We have about 400 billion stars in just the Milky Way Galaxy. Do you know how many galaxies there are? More than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world! Galaxies!)
The difference is . . . I don't add on a supernatural cause to things that are amazing or that I can't explain. Is it possible? Of course! But I find scientific explanations awesome and wonderful too, and just more plausible than than magical explanations.
The evidence for common descent of all animals is overwhelming. (even ID proponents like Michael Behe and Dembski accept common descent and an ancient earth as established facts.)
If the consistent and enormous fossil evidence was not enough, then certainly the retroviral DNA shared in common with humans and chimps will convince anyone who takes the time to look at it. I think it's so cool! And love, and wonderment and joy are emergent properties of this natural phenomenon that led to this conversation and this very moment. No magic required. We will have mystery, maybe always. But no demons, or fairies, or gods. Unless we create them, with our imagination or our science.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
Namaste
Reply to this
Robert,
Keep in mind as I type this that I am not trying to agitate you or be abrasive....
With your scientic reasoning...Love, Joy and Compassion. really have not any use in our survival...I mean really all we need to do to survive is to...
Mate, Eat, Sleep, and Shit( I realize some of the BullMoose women believe that is all men do
Where do you suppose that Love, Joy and Compassion play a part in science?? They are not truly necessary if science views us as the top of the food chain... and reacting to animal instincts...Love, Joy and compassion seem to be set apart in an unexplainable field of their own don't they????
Please help me out here... You have ended a few coversations with "Namaste"??
Namasté: A Sanskrit word meaning The Light of God in Me recognizes and honors The Light of God in You and in that recognition is our Oneness.
Now I know there are many defintions of this word...but it is based in spirituality isn't it??? Your "inner light"???
thx LTL
Reply to this
Let's look at two emotions: love and grief. I will be referring to the type of love a parent has for a child as opposed to romantic love.
A parent usually has this strong emotional feeling that guides behavior. A parent will work hard, go hungry, and risk it's own life to maintain the welfare of it's children. Why? Because we are gene machines designed by natural selection for the purpose of propagating our genes. Our children have half of our genes. They are the surest way to maintain the existence of our genes.
When a child dies, we experience overwhelming grief that is seared into memory. When we have another child, we will do everything we can not to experience that pain again. It is good for our genes for us to experience grief. Grief is adaptive. A population of humans that did not have love or grief would soon die out.
I am glad you brought up animals and instinct. We are animals, and we can find many behaviors in other animal species that we previously thought were unique to humans.
We are not unique or special like religious people insist. There is just no evidence of that!
Yes, we are smarter and we do have opposable thumbs and we do have highly advanced language. Those are present in other species as well, we just have them at a higher degree. It's a quantitative difference, not qualitative. We are not all that special folks!
Have you ever watched a gorilla care for it's baby? Remember when that human toddler fell in the pit with that gorilla troop? A female gorilla picked up the unconscious child and cradled and protected it. If love and compassion in humans is evidence of divine, then there is divine in other species as well. I think it's evidence of natural selection.
Here is another great video. This shows a heard of cape buffalo rescuing a calf from lions. If all animals did was mate, eat, sleep, and shit . . . and not care for their young that will propagate their genes, they would die out. Emotions are adaptive. They keep us alive. They keep our children alive.
The behavior of this heard is analogous to how a primitive tribe of people would act. If you are in my tribe, I will nurture you through an injury like a broken leg. I will do this out of an "instinct" called compassion. Not only do we share genes, but in the future you may save my ass or be needed to raise my children. Natural selection favors genes that make us care for each other. It's adaptive. Certain behaviors that we would call "bad" are adaptive as well.
I use 'Namaste' to mean "you are really just like me." We all share this thing called beingness or self awareness. There is a universality to the experience of living that we all share. At our core, we are more alike than different. We have to be. We all share common parents. The evidence of this is overwhelming.
Reply to this
forgot the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
Reply to this
I've been reading this thread here and believe it or not , I'm siding with Robert .
Truth : thousands of religious practices span the globe
Truth : every single one of them has a common goal , be good in life .
Truth : some religions preach killing infadels .
Truth : No proof that one is better than the other , even if you just respect Jesus Christ as a great philosopher .
Truth : The easter bunny is no more real than moon gods , harvest gods , eight-armed women , a jesus sighting in a stack of pancakes .... But you got to roll with it if it makes you fell comfortable and have a positive approach to life .
Robert I don't really believe you are Atheist , maybe agnostic ... which is where I fit in ... Atheists deny it all ... and agnostics are skeptical , but just in case there is something , we are good in life .
Science does explain alot and Religion trigger's emmotions that are distinctly human in nature ... we are the only one's who feel love , right LTL ? ... so it's a two-fold idea .... Science is human , Human is love , and forms of love are religion .
and I want to retort my comment on the last post about Huckabee being my 2nd place guy ,,, Did you see him tonight on the C-Span Iowa debate ?? ,,, what a moron !!!
Huckabee is a joke , As Allman predicted The media picked him up and he couldn't ride the lightning for anything ... Good Night Huck
Reply to this
That is the gist of much of what you say Robert...
What you call an "instinct" of compassion??
Humans don't eat their young like many animals do...Adult humans don't leave their kids scraps out of the desperation of hunger and survival.
We are similar to the animal kingdom only because we are part of an intricate system... Harmony, divine design... But take that "inner light" that you find in the defintion of "Namaste".. Your inner light in your belief is a religious symbol in and of itself...
We all have that inner light Robert...You have spirituality, whether you find it in the beauty of science or in the inner drive and wonder in lifes offerings. Wouldn't you agree???
My inner light just so happens to be in Christ... I beleive he provides the Love, Joy and Compassion that drives us and seperates us from the rest of the worlds creatures...We have instincts sure.. but love, joy, and compassion bring us far and away from just hunger and thirst that drives the rest of the world's creatures...
Thx LTL
Reply to this
I do not apply labels to myself as everyone has their own definition.
Some define atheist as one who denies the existence of god. This I am surely not. Others define an atheist as one who just does not believe in god. That's me. I lack this belief. What do you call one who lacks belief in astrology? What do you call someone who lacks belief in bigfoot?
I don't think we really need words to describe the lack of belief.
As far as 'agnostic', every honest person is agnostic. Who can say they "know" God exists? Only a liar. Who can say they "know" god does not exist? Ditto. We could all be in The Matrix for all we "know".
I don't know how you can say only humans feel love. What about all the other possible species in the universe? On this planet, we seem to have a complex language so we can talk about love. But who's to say what a Gibbon feels?
One of the best studied examples of religion as a natural phenomenon are the cargo cults of the south sea islands. Read about cargo cults and the religion John Frum on wikipedia. It's amazing.
Reply to this
I shun the word "spiritual" because it implies a disembodied mind or a ghost or an immortal soul. But yes, I have the feeling that everyone understands as spiritual. I believe it happens to be my neurons firing in a particular pattern, not something else.
Humans can and have eaten their young.
Most in our species share your hunch that humans are special. I think we are gathering evidence that makes such a view unsupportable. It is a religious belief, not something evidential.
What of Neanderthals? They were not humans, but they cooked their food and cared for their sick and wounded.
They also buried their dead with flowers.
Reply to this
Robert Wrote:
"I don't know how you can say only humans feel love. What about all the other possible species in the universe? On this planet, we seem to have a complex language so we can talk about love. But who's to say what a Gibbon feels?"
Robert,
I thought you were a man of science and evidence...Do you want to provide scientific evidence of UFO's and other "possible species" in the universe???
Sounds like "faith" in "something" to me.....
Thx LTL
Reply to this
I was making a philosophical point.
That is why I said possible species. I think the UFO crowd are a bunch of wackos. They believe nonsense without evidence, or even worse, despite the evidence.
I am open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life or intelligence. We currently have no evidence of this. But you know what we are finding now, almost everywhere we look? Planets.
I find no obvious flaws with the Drake Equation, thus am flummoxed by the Fermi Paradox just like everyone else. Perhaps malignant religiosity needs to be added to the equation, kinda like a fudge factor.
Reply to this
Define "experience".
What exactly would it take for you to believe. Give us an example.
Reply to this
Robert,
I don't know if you've seen this one, but here's the Dawkins rationalist response to a HARD question:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related
His only out is that evolution could have only occurred 300,000 million years ago when we weren't around? Why we can't witness this today? Has the random evolutionary process mysteriously process come to a halt? If so, how?
Do you think maybe if we were allowed to discuss the possibility God and the paranormal in the context of science at our research universities, our understanding of all this would increase one way or another? Instead we are prohibited from exploring this causality and forced down a narrow path of scientific discovery. A truly open-minded person would INSIST on the scientific "exploration" of a God or paranormal connection to science, even though skeptical of it. Rejecting outright the God-science connection and refusing to allow ANY investigation in essentially counter-science and no better than strict religious dogma.
One last point - evolution is only a THEORY, i.e. it has never been proven. As a rationalist, how do you square this with the second LAW of thermodynamics, which HAS been proven and can be demonstrated in a lab? I'm not asking this sarcastically or rhetorically, I'd really like to know.
Reply to this
I don't know really.
Your asking me to make a prediction based on an imagined event that I have no prior experience of and therefor no memory of how I reacted.
This would probably do it: people are always thanking God for 'miracles' when someone recovers from cancer or some other disease. No one has ever re-grown an amputated limb though. I wonder why not? What does God have against amputees?
If I had a leg amputated, and then after praying to God for a new one, if I re-grew one on the spot, I would believe.
Reply to this
This goes beyond Huck But is Important!
Reporting technology currently in place which eventually could be used when the edict is issued to take the mark of the beast in the right hand or in the forehead in order to buy or sell or be killed.
Are you ready to "Get Chipped"?
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Chip_Implants/index.html
link goes to story... Lord I am scared...
Where is America????
LNSu
Reply to this
I think I read the same blog you did, Bob. Or, is this your blog? Or, do you and this atheist frequent, absorb and then regurgitate the same material?
http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-does-god-hate-amputees.html
Interesting that you used the same exact "Why does God hate amputees" argument. It seems you're swallowing what is being fed to you - as you have eluded to in your posts here is what "believers" are doing.
You asked me how it was that I came to reject all other religions and settled on one that gives me peace. I ask you the same thing - how is it that you rejected God and settled on what you believe? I imagine that someone, along the way, presented faith to you in a negative way. A way that made you feel guilty and rejected. I may be wrong but, if that is the case, that's unfortunate. You must understand that for the majority of people who believe (myself included), it's not out of guilt or fear. In fact, I know someone who has rejected God because of the reason's I've described above. He has spent the last few years trying to convince everyone that they're "too simple" to realize the truth. Unfortunately, more and more people are rejecting him and not because he's a non-believer but because he has chosen to scorn those who are. See, Bob, I'm not an evangelical Christian. If I were, I would be trying to convince you that you should be a believer. Frankly, I don't care if you are either way. But, I do care about the manner in which you make your argument. You have a preconceived notion about believers and I have to tell you, the majority of Christians I know come to this belief out of love and comfort, not out of fear. The God I believe in isn't fearful but, instead, guides us through difficulties and through joy. He rejoices when we're happy and cries when we're sad.
You admit you need solid proof to believe. You need something you can see, hear, etc. You need to see it to believe it. Unfortunately, it's called "faith" for a reason, Bob. You have to BELIEVE in order to see it.
Reply to this
This is stupid. Somehow, this conversation became a debate about atheism versus (generally) Christianity. There's very little to be gained from such a direction considering how entrenched either side is. We may challenge each other, but I do not suspect either part to change their tune anytime soon.
The main issue Robert brought up was about decision-making. Based on Robert's statements, he thinks only atheists are qualified to be world leaders. Yes, Robert, I know that's not what you said outright, but your suggestion that a belief system that leads one to consult something other than verifiable fact automatically disqualifies the religious individual. Of course, this is nonsense.
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Robert is totally right and there is no god, there are no spirits, all religions are wrong. If such were the case, then the only response people would get from their religious practice would be what they put into it.
If I prayed to a non-existent god and came away thinking I heard that I must do X, Y or Z, those ideas couldn't have come from anywhere but my own mind. Crazy people would come out with crazy ideas. Rational people would come out with rational ones. It would be counterintuitive for anything else to happen, assuming that there is no outside stimulus from God or Allah or Vishnu, etc.
Therefore, as a rational atheist, you are compelled to completely discount professed religious conviction and, instead, focus on the record of the individual's words and actions - like the rest of us. If your atheism, however, leads you to the make the blanket decision to disqualify all those with religious conviction as inherently irrational, then you must accept that such a view is motivated by a bigoted attitude.
Now, if you would like to discuss Christian theology, which I believe you have been significantly misled about, then we can continue down that road. I'd be happy to respond to your questions so long as they come one at a time.
Reply to this
Hey Robert,
Here's a little something for you. It's about atheist Pullman's little book/movie 'The Golden Compass' and his desire to kill God (which has flopped btw).
Read to the bottom about well-known atheist Antony Flew. Seems he has had a change of heart.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=9E15FCAA-A855-4195-85E4-C1F08D6D09B3
For a half-century, Antony Flew was the world's most prominent atheist. An eminent philosopher, Flew was Dawkins before Dawkins -- Hitchens with an intact brain.
Beginning with his paper "Theology and Falsification" (which became one of the most widely read philosophical treatises of the 20th century), delivered at the Oxford Socratic Club when Lewis chaired the group, Flew argued passionately and persuasively for the non-existence of God.
The professor said that absent convincing evidence, atheism must be the default position. However, if I ever find that proof, I'll get back to you, Flew promised.
He did in 2004, announcing that he is now a deist. Among other factors, Flew observed that human biology can't be explained by evolution or accident but presupposes a prime mover. This argument is expanded in his just-published book, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind."
So there is hope for Philip Pullman. In the meantime, by challenging us (modestly), he will end by bringing some closer to God. And that must drive him nuts.
Why is it that those that open Pandora's box upon society tend to reverse course later? i.e...the gal responsible for Roe v. Wade is now pro-life, atheists like Flew.....
Reply to this
Sorry Robert, I'm not following your amputee line of reasoning. How does that relate to the second law of thermodynamics? It actually PROVES it whereas evolution seems to be a direct contradiction.
Reply to this
Gabe is right --- You guys took this HUCKABEE post to a whole new depth and the neverending argument of creationism .... blah blah blah
New Topic Please .
Reply to this
GABE:
This thread did evolve and branch out to cover topics unrelated to my original point, but that's a recurring theme in nature.
If you read all my posts, which I would not expect anyone to do, you will realize you are arguing against a straw man.
"he thinks only atheists are qualified to be world leaders"
I never said that, and in fact said this:
"I think using prayer or meditation is fine in order to gain reassurance or to help consolidate your ideas."
You said:
"If your atheism, however, leads you to the make the blanket decision to disqualify all those with religious conviction as inherently irrational"
This too is a mis-characterization of my statements and views. I gave a specific example that says exactly the opposite of this.
Anyway, this was my point:
We should make decisions based on evidence and reason. If a person wants to pray, or sacrifice a goat, or cast lots, or look at tea leaves . . . go ahead. But the results of these superstitious rituals should have little operational impact on decisions.
Reply to this
WTF? Somebody asked me what kind of experience I would need to believe in God.
---------
Evolution does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics. You may not realize this, but planet Earth revolves around a star we call the Sun which provides energy in the form of heat and light. When you see a plant or tree grow from a seed, it may 'seem' like magic, but we have understood photosynthesis for a long time now.
Your canard only works on the very ignorant, and you see creationists drag it out from time to time. It's continued use demonstrates the transparent dishonesty of creationists.
Reply to this
Annie:
People's beliefs system change all the time. I've never heard of the guy, but regardless of how "well known" he is, I am not the type that is influenced by authority.
Reply to this
tracy:
I'm not 'swallowing' anything. The amputee example is not my original idea, but the point is no less valid.
---------------------
I grew up in a moderate Southern Baptist Church and attended an Episcopal school through 6th grade. As far back as I recall, I never believed anything about religion. The Bible stories seemed as ludicrous then as they do now.
In third grade we spent a month or so studying India. I remember my friend's mocking jokes about the 'stupid' and 'silly' beliefs of Hindus. The hypocrisy was lost on them, but not me.
I first heard the word 'agnostic' when I was eleven. I thought: "Oh, OK, that's what I am. I must not be the only one."
I am a natural skeptic. My schoolmates believed in God, and Jesus, and bigfoot, and UFOs, and the Bermuda Triangle, and hidden messages on backward masked albums, and that the Exorcist was a documentary. To me then and now I classify all that junk the same way: nonsense.
Reply to this
Gabe and Theins,
I am partly at fault here on this ongoing thread...this same thing happened last weekend with the "Hitchens" post.
I find these arguments fascinating..Although I agree with Gabe and Thiens to an extent that there is no real conclusions to this debate...
We will all just fall back to our beliefs and move on...
That being said..this argument in many ways does pertain to Huckabee and how religion is viewed.
If Jamie thought this argument was bullshit??? He would have piped in and told us so...If this thread would have been about say....Michael Vick?? Then this argument and thread would be by "Bull Moose" Law. (Like that?) ridiculous...
I think this has been a healthy argument myself... Infuriating at times and yes like beating our heads against the wall...But we did what comes naturally in my opinion...We were reacting to something dear to us or important.
Look at Theins
It's healthy and thought provoking conversation...It reinforces the religious and reinforces Roberts views I'm sure.... God Bless You Robert
It's all good BMA! I am hoping someday we can all sit down and find common ground with a beer and a plate of wings!
We are all here for a reason....Just revert back to Jamie's original post...Good stuff!!!!
I visit a lot of blogs and Bull Moose America is by far the best and most fun..
Thx LTL
Reply to this
Robert:
What you said was: "Do we want a leader with the ability to evaluate evidence and use his reason, or do we want one that consults bronze-age myth books and consults an imaginary specter in the sky?"
The IMPLICATION is clear. When I am going to make a big decision, I may sometimes consult my "bronze-age myth book" otherwise known as the Holy Bible to us illogical Christian folk. The wisdom I find there informs my opinions. I weigh my options, and then I decide. By your estimation, as denoted in the above statement, such deferrence to myth is assumed to supplant evidence and reason.
And this is where you have neglected to address the bulk of my response. Your attack on Huckabee in this thread appear to be purely based on his religious convictions informing his decion-making. I simply pointed out that it is far more enlightened to attack Huckabee based on his decision-making record.
It just seems like you take every opportunity to belittle those with religious conviction as somehow divorced from reason. As a believer who also happens to be a rocket scientist, I find that troubling.
Reply to this
Tracy,
You wrote:
"You admit you need solid proof to believe. You need something you can see, hear, etc. You need to see it to believe it. Unfortunately, it's called "faith" for a reason, Bob. You have to BELIEVE in order to see it."
We seem to be using the same words but with different definitions. I do not need solid proof to believe something. If I have solid proof, then it is something I know, not something I believe.
In order for me to believe something, I need good evidence. Right now I believe I am wearing black socks. (I worked today and I always wear black socks to work. I recall putting black socks on this morning. I recall changing clothes when I got home, except my socks.)
OK I just checked, I am wearing black socks. I know I am wearing black socks.
"You have to BELIEVE in order to see it."
This kind of statement makes no sense to me. It's as if for you, what you believe is something you can just decide.
I could not just choose at this moment to believe in Zeus. I could not will myself to hold this belief. I could certainly say I believe in Zeus, but I would be lying.
I could not just decide at this moment to believe I am wearing white socks, because I know I am not.
What is going on here? When you use the word 'believe', what does that mean? Does it mean the same thing as 'hope' or 'wish'? Are you able to will yourself to believe just anything?
I have often suspected that the difference between a believer and a non-believer is really a matter of brain function. The necessary requirements for a religious person to believe are just different from the necessary requirements for me to believe.
I am not making a judgment here. I'm just trying to understand why religious people can at times seem so alien to me.
Reply to this
Gabe:
My initial post was intended to be jarring. I asked a question, and I agree that there is an implication in the question.
But as the thread evolved, it also becomes clear that I do not dismiss all religious people as irrational. Not at all. They believe things I don't understand, but from my day to day experience of interacting with people, I realize rational people can also be religious.
I am bothered not just by Huckabee's religious beliefs, but how they are so operative in other areas of his life. He was one of the republicans that raised his hand to indicate he did not 'believe' in evolution. I was waiting for the next question to be "Well what about gravitation?"
His answer indicates he is basically illiterate.
At another time he said his disbelief in evolution is a non-issue, because he wants to be president, not a science teacher. To me he is saying "it is OK for a president to be clueless about science. The scientific method has no value."
Again, he really said that an angel guided his bullet into the Elk. AN ANGEL GUIDED HIS BULLET!
There is so much wrong with that statement.
This is not the kind of mind we need running the country.
--------------------------
Do aerospace engineers really call themselves "rocket scientists"? I have only heard the term used as a cliche when referring to an an easy problem: "Come on, it's not rocket science!"
A similar cliche refers to "brain surgery", but those guys are called neurosurgeons.
Your clear thinking and writing are enough evidence for me that you are bright enough, there is no need to flaunt your alleged credentials
Reply to this
LTL - It's funny that you mention turnips , 9 out of 10 Ron Paul Supporters recommend them .. haha
Huckabee is the poster boy for the reps right now , no doubt , but he wouldn't stand a chance against any of the dems ( the liberal media pushes guys they know can be beat )
How about Alan Keyes ??? That guy is serioussly from a different planet ... Scientifically or religiously that guy is a NutJob ! ! !
I didn't even know he was still around ..
Apparently in the Des Moines Register debate... candidates had to have a Headquarters in Iowa and be polling above 1% in Iowa to be eligible to participate ... Which Keyes had neither .... how the hell did he get there ??? any ideas ??? ( maybe magic , maybe emmaculation , maybe freakin VooDoo ) ..... oddly enough , I wouldn't discredit any of those options , Keyes' lost his mind a long time ago .
Reply to this
WOW!!! The planet EARTH actually revolves around the SUN? I didn't KNOW that. Man, Bobby, you are one sharp cookie! Thanks for the astronomy lesson.
Too bad you can't get into a serious discussion without turning into an arrogant jack-ass, typical of many liberals. My point is this: nobody really has the answer and unless we open our minds and explore all possibilities we are limiting our ability to learn; but then again you and those like you think you know it all anyhow, so what's the point?
OK Bobby Boy, let's talk photosynthesis. Random chance energy from the sun is absorbed by a cellular carbon life-form...I know the schtick, and the arguments about the uphill/downhill cycle. The bottom line is this: How'd the order get into the system in the first place to start the whole process? Was total order randomly formed from total chaos? This would have required an external energy source. Even Stephen Hawking can't explain this. Being the smart guy you are and knowing about the earth revloving around the sun and all that, I'm sure you can enlighten Dr. Hawking and the rest of us flat earthers on the matter.
Thanks in advance for imparting your wisdom on all us ignoramuses.
Reply to this
JD:
"Do you think maybe if we were allowed to discuss the possibility God and the paranormal in the context of science at our research universities, our understanding of all this would increase one way or another?"
I encourage open discussion, and I think the question you ask would be appropriate in a philosophy class were problems of epistemology are usually encountered.
Science presupposes a natural explanation. It must, or it would not be science. Suppose I asked the question "What keeps the earth from flying off into space?" One answer could be "God does", but to me that is a non-answer. It's of no use. What can you do with that answer?
Newton comes along and describes universal gravitation and laws of motion and gives us classical mechanics. Now that is a really interesting and useful answer!
I could then ask: "By what mechanism does gravitation work?" You could answer "God is the force behind gravitation". Again, a non-answer. It's worthless. What can you do with it?
Einstein comes along and tells us Newton was wrong, the Sun does not pull on the earth, the Sun warps space-time such that the earth is accelerating towards the Sun. You know when you take off in a plane how you are pressed back into your seat? Same phenomenon. Your seat is not pulling on you, as the sun does not pull on the earth.
Einstein gave us something we can use.
Offering magic or the supernatural as a scientific explanation is no answer at all. This is why "intelligent design" is not a scientific explanation. It is a non-answer.
You are confusing the the common definition of 'theory' with the scientific definition. You should look this up, it's a topic typically covered in the 7th or 8th grade.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Science denialism is a bizarre practice, I'm thinking of writing a book about it.
Reply to this
JD:
You are moving the goalpost.
You claimed evolution violated the second law. It does not. The earth is not a closed system. We have the sun.
You seem to now be asking a different question now. I can't really tell, but I think you might be asking me this:
"What accounts for the laws of physics and the energy in the universe?"
I don't know.
Reply to this
A bolt of lightning struck a primordial pool of sludge?????????????????????
Reply to this
Hey JD, I think we got off on the wrong foot because you thought one of my posts was a response to your post of one minute before. I just now figured out whats going on.
Reply to this
Yes Theins,
I have heard the "turnip" spot on a commercial by Ron Paul.... He said "I am not a Dr. but I play one on TV."
Fact is Ron Paul believes that "turnips" are unconstitutional and many times he quotes Mathias TeaRoot a radical arsonist from 1498 who claimed that turnips are the devil's veggie
Thx LTL
Reply to this
Robert,
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm not really trying to move the goalpost, but the photosynthesis point you brought up hinges on energy transfer, which naturally works its way back to the original source of the energy...
In any case, evolution has never been proven or duplicated in a controlled setting, as required by the scientific method. I don't know if you have ever read Darwin's "Origin of Species", but Darwin himself takes several leaps of faith to conclude that one species evolves form another. It's easy to imagine how the environment may favor certain characteristics in a species to cause the species as a whole to grow bigger, stronger, faster, etc. However, it takes as much of a leap of faith to think that environmental conditions can randomly precipitate a sustainable fundamental change in the genetic code of a given species (i.e. a mutation) that will become dominant as it does to believe that some outside force is intelligently steering changes in a desired direction. Darwin makes this leap several times throughout his writings using assumptions that support his initial conclusions - no better and no worse than Des Cartes when he failed trying to prove the existence of God through logic.
Reply to this
"evolution has never been proven"
And it never will be. Science is not about 'proof' or what is absolute 'truth'. Proofs are for mathematicians and logicians. Science offers explanations that are more or less likely to be correct.
Bringing up "The Origin of Species" is of interest to me because I am interested in history, but it is of no use when discussing the current status of the theory. The evidence that evolution occurs and is occurring is so overwhelming and universally acknowledged that to deny it really is equivalent to claiming the earth is flat.
Now you bring up a particular mechanism called natural selection that is part of the theory. There is now and always has been dispute within the community about the role of natural selection. Is it enough to make a man, or do we need another mechanism too? That question is still open.
If by by 'outside force' you mean something supernatural then you have stopped talking about science. Please see above why this is so.
Evolution occurs. It is difficult to demonstrate the way you point out because of the time scale. But we have bacteria, and they multiply and evolve very fast.
The MRSA bacteria is the most obvious example. It's a new species. It evolved because of the selective pressure of antibiotics.
The literature is filled with thousands of other examples. Take a look.
----------------------
You should realize that bringing up the second law of thermodynamics and "just a theory" will get you pigeonholed. Those are lies that keep getting told over and over and over. It really needs to stop. It's obfuscation at it's worst.
Reply to this
"you brought up hinges on energy transfer, which naturally works its way back to the original source of the energy..."
Yes I think I was able to deduce this eventually. This is another issue that comes up when discussing evolution that really should not, because it is a different topic.
Evolution is the topic of how an isolated population changes over time.
Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. That is another topic.
Evolution does not deal with the origin of the universe or the big bang. That is another topic.
Reply to this
Robert,
You seem to be arguing with yourself here. on one hand you say evolution can't be proven, on the othe you say that MRSA bacteria demonstrates it. You can't have it both ways, my friend.
Your MRSA example proves my point. It is a form staphylococci bacterium that has become resistant to anti-biotics over time. These bacteria were strong enough to to survive (adapt to) the onslaught of anti-biotics (which, by the way, were created by "intelligent design"); yes, they became stronger as a group over time due to the strength of previous surviving generations in the strain, but their basic genetic code has NEVER changed - THEY ARE STILL BACTERIA.
As soon as you bring photosynthesis into the entropy/evolution argument (which YOU did earlier and it's ABSOLUTELY fair to do so), this takes the discussion on a crash-course path towards the origins of life, matter, energy, and the universe.
Reply to this
I agree, this entire discussion veered way off topic but I honestly find this whole thread fascinating. I see it as an opportunity to learn - see what makes our friend, Bob, tick. The only way we can learn from one another is to engage in discussions like this. I apologize for taking this entire discussion way off track but I truly want to hear what Bob has to say. And, since he continues to engage us, I expect he feels the same. JMHO
Reply to this
JD:
"You seem to be arguing with yourself here. on one hand you say evolution can't be proven, on the othe you say that MRSA bacteria demonstrates it. You can't have it both ways, my friend."
You are confusing "The Theory of Evolution" with observed fact that evolution occurs. Gravitation occurs. General Relativity Theory is one explanation of gravity that holds up very well.
I'm not being a jackass, but this really is 7th or 8th grade foundational science. More on the fact and theory of evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
"basic genetic code has NEVER changed - THEY ARE STILL BACTERIA"
You are moving the goalpost again. MRSA is a new species. If I had 50 million years and you and I observed a cow evolve into a whale-like sea animal you would say "But basic genetic code has never changed - IT IS STILL A MAMMEL."
Whales evolved from land animals. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Do we have the whole process on camera? No, but look at the evidence for yourself.
"As soon as you bring photosynthesis into the entropy/evolution argument "
NO, you missed my point entirely. I just used a plant going from a seed to a tree as an example of of how the sun drives the process of increasing complexity. The sun drives the process of increasing complexity we observe in evolution too, thats all.
"Drives" is not really correct, "provides energy for" is better.
Reply to this
Robert:
We do generally use 'rocket scientist' in a joking manner, or in this case, as an exclamation point of sorts. The point is, I consider myself both a man of science and a man of the Bible. You are entitled to think that the two are mutually exclusive, but doing so as confrontational and, frankly, insulting manner is counterproductive to polite conversation. Your tactics would tend to prove only to get in return what you give - invective.
As to the discussion about evolution, I submit that everyone, including us Creationists believe that micro-evolution - the specialization of traits and characteristics as a result of environmental stimulus - is real, and has a scientific basis. Macro-evolution however - the transformation of one species to another - has only circumstantial evidence and hypothetical 'evidence.'
Further, macro-evolution relies heavily on the idea that mutation is responsible for the introduction of new genetic information. But all empirical evidence regarding mutations shows that not a single one has ever produced new information. That is not to say they didn't create new TRAITS, but the genetic information necessary to facilitate the trait was already in the subject DNA. Mutations are simply a rearranging of the blocks into a different structure. The macro-evolutionary idea of mutation is akin to suggesting that new blocks can be spontaneously added.
And to answer your previous assertion, abiogenesis, or the origin of life from non-living matter (as is implied by most evolutionists) does violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics in that it runs opposite of the known direction of entropy. Living matter has a chemical complexity far greater than anything that can be artificially produced when energy is introduced into non-biological matter. To go from a collection of component gases and elements into a structure as complex as, say, DNA would require the complete reversal of natural entropy progression - even assuming the closed system in question to be the entire galaxy.
Reply to this
Gabe:
Oh good grief.
"And to answer your previous assertion, abiogenesis, or the origin of life from non-living matter (as is implied by most evolutionists)does violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics in that it runs opposite"
I have made no assertions at all about abiogenesis! You guys just keep moving the goalpost. It's ridiculous.
I congratulate you on trotting out all the classic canards used by the denialist movement.
I was skeptical of your professional claims, and am more so as the evidence mounts.
Reply to this
I'll give you the abiogenesis. Apparently I made a bad assumption there. (Fancy that.) But supposing that you're simply talking about all current species originating from a single-celled organism (as is one of the primary aspects of evolution), you still have the issue of complexity.
As for my "trotting out... canards," you've apparently decided it's not worth it to address what I've written, but rather attack my "credentials." Frankly, I could care less whether you believed I'm an aerospace engineer or a homeless man at a local library. But as you are so fond of asserting, decision-making should be based on an analysis of evidence. It's funny that you seem to be collecting "evidence" to support your skepticism about my professional claims, but have yet to deal with the substance of the argument.
Though I disagree with you on, no doubt, many issues, I have yet to call into question YOUR "credentials" or your ability to investigate and analyze data. I have sought, almost exclusively, to address the substance of your arguments. I don't understand why you were so eager to refute other claims in this thread, but have chosen instead to blow me off.
Reply to this
Gabe:
"To go from a collection of component gases and elements into a structure as complex as, say, DNA would require the complete reversal of natural entropy progression - even assuming the closed system in question to be the entire galaxy."
A galaxy is an open system. The universe is closed. You must have missed that day at rocket science school.
I have offered no credentials.
I am blowing you off because you are dishonest, which is the heart of denialism. I used to debate denialists, but learned it was pointless.
I pulled this off a blog:
"Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions."
All of your assertions are distractions and have been refuted ad nauseum. Doing so again here is pointless, and frankly, boring.
Reply to this
"A galaxy is an open system. The universe is closed. You must have missed that day at rocket science school."
Yes, if you want to encompass the entire universe within the bounds of the system you are analyzing that's fine. But seeing as you only have limited knowledge of all that goes on in that system, you may want to make your bounds smaller. Something I DID learn at "rocket science" school is how to scale a system for analysis. It doesn't make sense to include the entirety of the universe (or the galaxy for that matter) in order to measure entropic relationships on Earth. The point of using the term was a bit of hyperbole. But I guess you missed it.
"I have offered no credentials. "
Neither have I. I offered a perspective. I explained that I was asserting that I consider myself a scientist and a Christian and your insulting manner offends me. I made no effort to connect that to my "expertise" in anything we are discussing. It would be pointless anyway since my specialty has nothing to do with biology or paleontology or the like. The point is, your attack on my "credentials" is just as it would be for me to say, "Who are YOU to make those claims?"
"I am blowing you off because you are dishonest, which is the heart of denialism. I used to debate denialists, but learned it was pointless."
You have offered no evidence of such dishonesty. And your assertion about me being a "denialist" is mental gymnastics. I am asserting a different interpretation of available data. If my data is wrong, it should be child's play to sink my interpretation. If my interpretation is illogical, again, it should be easy to shoot them down.
I'm not sure what circles you run in where answers to my arguments have been explored "ad nauseum," but I am aware of none of that information. You have gone back and forth with several other people in this thread, yet I'm the only one you've taken to this "denialist" line with.
I would be much more understanding if you didn't want to continue right now because you didn't have time or you don't have the information at your fingertips. But this elitist, intellectual high-ground stance you've taken smacks of something not nearly as honest - especially since you had enough time and internet savvy to find a definition of denialism.
Perhaps I'm asking about too many issues at once. How about we just pare it down to one or two questions. What is the hypothesized mechanism by which more and more complex species developed from a single-celled organism? Does this mechanism violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
Surely you could deign to offer me a peak at your vast stores of knowledge regarding these two questions with but a few sentences.
Reply to this
I think this about sums it up right here....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5YCACHWO4Y
Thx LTL
Reply to this
Wow!
First, one hasn't had to have been in the service to support our men and women in uniform. People make choices about their lives. My father was in Viet Nam (which was a WAR) and his father stormed the beach at Normandy in WWII. Oh, how my family would have loved for me to be in the Air Force - my father always said, "great eyesight, small size, you'd be a great pilot." I DIDN'T WANT TO BE IN THE AIR FORCE! As an American, that was my choice. That's one of the many beautiful things about America. I have choices, and so does Jaime! That being said, I am extremely proud of my father and grandfather for serving our country, and they were no less proud of me because I didn't want to go into the service! I went to college - and I never smoked dope! Seriously.
The other thing I wanted to point out is that just because there are 5 regular posters, doesn't mean others don't read! As far as the priest thing goes, you are misguided. You dare lump a group of people to a few individuals who are sickening??? There are bad people in every walk of society - priests, protestant preachers (lest we forget it's not only Catholics), teachers, police officers, insurance agents, CEOs, conservatives, liberals, men, women - you name the profession, there's a bad person somewhere in the mix! I don't lump my moderately liberal husband with you. He's intelligent with what he has to say. He makes sense. We have interesting debates in our household on issues, and mostly cancel each other's votes out. In fact, his friends are mostly liberals. They're not like you, though. They speak with evidence, not hate. I love our debates when we get together, and I'm usually the only conservative! They are not mean to me - they recognize my opinions, and I recognize theirs.
Why? Because they know, and I know, we are in America! We all enjoy our rights and freedoms here, and we don't spew hate at each other.
Reply to this
Now, I've forgotten why I read to the end. I started to respond to something Robert wrote on 12/12 about what would make the world a better place.
If we all love one another, and treat each other like we would want to be treated, this world would be a better place. No amount of scientific exploration will do that. We have to realize we are individuals, and accept each other, and their talents. Everyone has something to give.
Interestingly, that's what the United States of America is about. The great majority doesn't think it's alright to step on women, or kill college students - it's not okay to mass-bury people! We the People have, and, I so dearly hope, will continue to stand up for the rights of people around the world.
More interestingly, Jesus Christ commanded that we should treat each other like we want to be treated. That's why all of us religious folk love our religions. It's not hurting you for us to say Merry Christmas. We, too, should have the right of our religion in this country. A right that is sadly being slowly taken by people who can't stand being merry in December! How sad for you. Sorry, but I do pray that the good Lord will touch your heart and teach you to love.
Merry Christmas to all of you.
Reply to this
This will be my last post on this thread, you can have the board back.
Gabe:
You are being intellectually dishonest because you, like most creationists, have no desire to really learn. Other people have posted questions to me on here, and I think they honestly wanted to know my answer.
I will not play a perpetual game of whack-a-mole with you. You relentlessly mis-apply the second law. You use scientific jargon such as this as a smoke screen. If you honestly want to understand the 2nd law, just read the Wikipedia entry on it, it addresses your mistakes.
The truth is, order comes from disorder in nature all the time. Snowflakes and tornadoes are examples anyone can understand. None of this violates the second law. ("disorder" has a very specific meaning in the context of the second law; it does not mean the same thing at all as it is commonly used)
As I said before, debating creationists and denialists is a pointless waste of time. It degenerates into a game of "No true Scotsman".
I will explain.
You claimed that natural selection cannot produce new information. If I offered an example of how it can, you would respond "That's not REALLY new information."
Gabe: No Scotsman puts sugar in his coffee.
Robert: My uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar in his coffee.
Gabe: Oh really? Well he's no TRUE Scotsman.
-----------------------------------
We could play this game for weeks, but it's pointless. Moving the goalpost, mis-application of principles, cherry picking, false analogies . . . I've seen it all before and it just gets boring.
------------------------------
"What is the hypothesized mechanism by which more and more complex species developed from a single-celled organism?"
Mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.
"Does this mechanism violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?"
No.
QED
Reply to this
This one is for the Huck-Junkies and the fan's of the "fair/flat tax" ---
It's only two minutes long so don't get all flustered right away .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHilf4xibUY
Mike Huckabee is Economically retarded , And America isn't filled with a bunch of kindergarteners who can't decipher this poison logic .
Reply to this
Thanks Robert,
Your posts haven't "proven" anything, but have certainly demonstrated a complete and utter faith in a dogma (scientific) that is often contradictory and refusal to explore alternatives ideas...a pattern of behavior normally attributed to religous fundamentalists.
Merry Christmas.
QED
Reply to this
T,
The speech Huckabee was giving towards the end of the video is a little disingenuous. He was giving that speech to list alternatives for democrats who were about to shut the state government down because of Huck's refusal to raise taxes. He was merely listing taxes he would consider. The Arkansas state legislature is about 75% democrat in spite of Bill Clinton calling it a "certifiably red state", so it's a little unfair to accuse him of "raising" taxes in that state without point out that he had TONS of help.
I must say that I agree with most of Ron Paul's principles. That said, it's always easy to vote "yea" or "nay" on something based on ideals, then walk away when the rubber hits the road and someone else has to face reality to make things happen. This is why senators never make good presidents either - it's more fun and there's more money to be made in the peanut gallery.
The Fair Tax would be better than what we have today because it would represent fundamental reform, something our system badly needs. However, implementing it without abolishing the 16th amendment would leave the door open for the mischief makers in congress to reinstitute income taxes on top of federal sales taxes. Not good.
Reply to this
Hey Robert, Jesus said the Truth is hidden from the wise and revealed to the simple. A little Humility would serve you better if you really want to benefit mankind. To answer the question of where is your proof of God, the Bible makes it clear that You have to seek to find God. Now what would happen to free will if God made it obvious?
Back from work and raisin little Christians, and I must say reading this thread has been fun. I think Robert isn't angry at all, I think he was entertaining himself. He made alot of surface arguments he attacked peoples intelligence and was careful to jab with every post. He was never listening to any of us. But I feel like this was still worth it because he showed us the latest lies the serpent is shedding in our colleges. This thread is definitely a keeper for me.
Reply to this
"You are being intellectually dishonest because you, like most creationists, have no desire to really learn. Other people have posted questions to me on here, and I think they honestly wanted to know my answer."
An interesting perspective, but completely wrong. I've had many an argument completely turned on its head because of something new thrown at me during an argument. Sometimes people have said things that have made me go digging into subject matter I probably would never have looked into otherwise. But what I find most telling is how predictably you jumped to a conclusion that would essentially lead to the end of the argument. There's nothing in what I've written that should have lead you there, so it could only have been your predisposition at the start.
"I will not play a perpetual game of whack-a-mole with you. You relentlessly mis-apply the second law. You use scientific jargon such as this as a smoke screen. If you honestly want to understand the 2nd law, just read the Wikipedia entry on it, it addresses your mistakes.
The truth is, order comes from disorder in nature all the time. Snowflakes and tornadoes are examples anyone can understand. None of this violates the second law. ("disorder" has a very specific meaning in the context of the second law; it does not mean the same thing at all as it is commonly used)"
Aha! An actual attempt at engaging my argument. Though I wonder how my SINGLE statement in the ENTIRE thread about the 2nd law makes it such that I "relentlessly misapply" it. Were you to simply respond that you believed such instead of your little tantrums there, I would refer you to information theory and the connection between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy as applied by such men as Edwin Jaynes. Granted, the extent of the connection is hotly debated, that's where I'm coming from. Perhaps if you weren't so preoccupied with your false notions about me, we BOTH might have learned something.
"As I said before, debating creationists and denialists is a pointless waste of time. It degenerates into a game of "No true Scotsman"."
You cannot point to one example of that in my posts.
"We could play this game for weeks, but it's pointless. Moving the goalpost, mis-application of principles, cherry picking, false analogies . . . I've seen it all before and it just gets boring."
Of all those admittedly annoying tactics that tend to come out during debates, you can only say I "used" one - moving the goalpost - and even then, it was a very minor infraction based on an assumption for which I IMMEDIATELY conceded. This stands in sharp contrast to your talking down to me, belittling me and being an all-around jerk.
If you don't want to be challenged on your ideas, or have people respond with contrary opinions - flawed arguments and all - don't bother saying anything on the web, because that's what you get. You'd think someone so "bored" by all of it would have enough experience.
Reply to this
Sorry for jacking the thread my fellow BMA'ers. I was curious to see if he actually wanted to engage or whether he would call me names and go running for the hills. It seems I got a little of the former and a lot of the latter.
Carry on!
Reply to this
Honestly, Gabe, I love your input in BMA. I consider myself a conservative but in all candor I can't figure out how people stick to a true Creationist theory and certainly I would never vote for a person who adheres to it. Sorry. My entire life and my Catholic teaching tells me both Creationism and Evolution work in concert with each other. God sets in motion Evolution. I also find it odd that Evangelical Christians are so quick to crap on Mormons for their odd teachings but then think nothing of dismissing outright any other theory but Creationism.
Reply to this
For Gabe or anyone else who I have offended, please watch this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890
Reply to this
Well put Jamie,
It has been an interesting thread to say the least..I kinda lost my "umpf" when Robert said he was a "Cyborg"...but that's okay. I commend Robert for his fortitude....I really do Robert.
I do know this BMA, that when the "end" does come and we meet our Creator...All of mankind will be made fools of....When everything is revealed and we say "Wow! this is what it's all about!" It will be a time I will be glad to be made a fool....
Please take a listen to this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Zfx5qra_g
There is a beauty in faith....
You're the best BMA.
Thx LTL
Reply to this
How many times has the Catholic church changed it's views on science, Jamie? Jesus said He was the Son of God, born of a virgin, destined to die and be raised again in three days. In your 'logic' He was 'unsupportable'.
Three things: I love your show and look foward to my service van and "don't fence me in" at 6:10 every am.
The Body of Christ is in every denomination including the Catholic Church.
Check out C.S. Lewis's argument called the 'poached egg'.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. – Mere Christianity, pages 40-41
Reply to this
Thanks for the call out on that one Lonny..far be it from me to say the Church hasn't "changed it's views" to the point of questionable fluidity. Believe me, as one who fought hard while working there for some to change their views about protecting pedophiles I am not one to say the Church and its men are infallible .
Bear in mind I'm not saying Creationsists are dopes. I'm just saying those who ascribe to the Creationist/Evolution thing are not dopes either. BTW: I'd never judge others for being whacky (kinda why I don't treat Mormonism overly glibly). You're talking to a guy who believes Mary Mother of Jesus was conceived without sin and taken to Heaven body and soul and that the body and blood of Jesus in Mass is really the body and blood when I ingest it...so far be it from me to judge anyone else as crazy.
May God Bless You and your family and thank you for listening.
Reply to this