|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2004 : 17:22:57 [Permalink]
|
I usually don't get involved in this sort of discusion, but here's an essay I stumbled across some time ago. All here might reap a benefit from it.
quote:
TOL·ER·ANCE (n.)
1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
2.a. Leeway for variation from a standard. b. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
As Robert Green Ingersoll pointed out, to "tolerate" someone is to make an "assumption of authority" and it is therefore invalid to say to another "I tolerate you" or "I tolerate your religion / beliefs." One does not have the authority to "tolerate" someone else's religious beliefs: that is the default condition, and requires no act or largesse on anyone's part. Therefore when I write about religious tolerance, I am speaking about the fact that one has no right to perform any wrongful act against a person or group based only upon that person's or group's religion, religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs. The default is if they cause no harm, leave them alone.
Note that harmful actions caused in the name of a church, religion, or religious belief are certainly open to criticism: it is not being intolerant or bigoted to castigate criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior. Indeed, it is a human being#146;s duty to oppose criminal acts regardless of who commits them. Crimes committed in the name of religion are still crimes, and must therefore be denounced.
http://www.holysmoke.org/tolerate.htm
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2004 : 17:55:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I said "don't get me wrong, I agree with most of the base points you make". You act as if I said that you being on here at all travesty against al man kind.
Perhaps I didn't state the obvious, to me, very well, I haven't spoken to you before so It was in refernece to the other gentlemen I have spoken with. If I direct something to somebody, I will direct it by name.
quote:
I'm trieing to help you understand, that what you're doing to promote faith over science, is not only not helping the cause, but it's hurting it. When you come in, and, debate in a way where you ignore other people's responses to your claims, that is what feeds the stereotype of clueless creationist', who when backed into a corner changes the subject.
Then maybe they shouldn't have put the title of the thread faith vs. science!!!! They should have simply had an evolution only thread!!! I do not know all the ins and outs of evolution, I have largly ignored it in my life. People are free to choose and believe anything they want, I am here simply to present faith. Despite all the low blows some seem not to notice!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2004 : 20:04:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
verlch:
I do not know all the ins and outs of evolution, I have largly ignored it in my life. People are free to choose and believe anything they want, I am here simply to present faith. Despite all the low blows some seem not to notice!!!
I noticed... I think probably, we all noticed... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2004 : 21:27:35 [Permalink]
|
VERICH-- "Then maybe they shouldn't have put the title of the thread faith vs. science!!!! They should have simply had an evolution only thread!!! I do not know all the ins and outs of evolution, I have largly ignored it in my life. People are free to choose and believe anything they want, I am here simply to present faith. Despite all the low blows some seem not to notice!!!"--
OK.....For the third time. It's NOT that i dis-agree with you on "faith vs. science. I'ts NOT that others do. I hold many of the same views as you do, and, unless I am completly blind, I have at least a general respect from others. I know for a fact that you are being mocked in public and in private. I don't know if I am being mocked in private, but, quite frankly I doubt it.
You come on hard as if you know what you're talking about, then when people challenge it a little bit, you come out with something else before
you answered the original question. That's what people have a problem with. Not you're idea's.
As I have said, I almost completly agree with the idea's you bring up, at least in general. But if you can't defend them, don't talk about them!
|
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
| Edited by - byhisgrace88 on 06/22/2004 21:29:57 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2004 : 21:40:38 [Permalink]
|
creation88, it should be pretty obvious by now that verlch is hung up on the description of the "Creation/Evolution" folder, which says "Also known as faith versus science." He's been shown the mission statement, and knows it's on every page, but - dagnabit - the description of that folder implies that he should be able to spout off about his faith at will. Unfortunately, he's also claimed that he wants to debate the subjects he brings up, but having been given ample opportunity, he's failed to live up to that claim.
What you have encountered, C88, is not just another of the faithful, but a true fanatic for Christ. He simply doesn't care what's said by others, he's here to witness and get into fights with people who disagree with him about the least little thing. And since you disagree with him about his approach, he's more than willing to consider you one of "the enemy" also.
Welcome to the club, C88! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2004 : 23:16:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
verlch: I do not know all the ins and outs of evolution, I have largly ignored it in my life.
LMAO! I just about cried I laughed so hard when I read that line.... Thanks verlch.
If you have ignored it, why then do you think you can speak intelligently about it? How then, after a life spent ignoring evolution, can you claim it is false or a lie?
unreal.... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 03:50:58 [Permalink]
|
| Best I can tell, that would make Leviticus roughly concurrent with the early date of the (fictive) Exodus. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 04:03:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Can't say I know much about it personally. It does seem to be a reference to the golden rule that predates the writing of Moses by a fair bit.
Can't say you tried very hard to investigate. It took me all of 30 seconds to find the following:
quote:
... classical Sanskrit epic of India, probably composed between 200 BC and AD 200. The Mahabharata, comprising more than 90,000 couplets, usually of 32 syllables, is the longest single poem in world literature. The 18-book work is traditionally ascribed to the ancient sage Vyasa, but it was undoubtedly composed by a number of bardic poets and later revised by priests, who interpolated many long passages on theology, morals, and statecraft. It is the foremost source concerning classical Indian civilization and Hindu ideals. [emphasis added]
- see (1) Mahabharata
quote:
The Mahabharata (composed between 300 BC and 300 AD) has the honor of being the longest epic in world literature, 100,000 2-line stanzas (although the most recent critical edition edits this down to about 88,000), making it eight times as long as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey together, and over 3 times as long as the Bible (Chaitanya vii). According to the Narasimhan version, only about 4000 lines relate to the main story; the rest contain additional myths and teachings. In other words, the Mahabharata resembles a long journey with many side roads and detours. It is said that “Whatever is here is found elsewhere. But whatever is not here is nowhere else.” [emphasis added]
- see (2) Mahabharata
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 06/23/2004 04:04:58 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 04:55:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Please substantiate Eastern roots predating Leviticus.
Do you disagree, or do you just want too show how good you are?
Do you have a point? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 06:39:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Then maybe they shouldn't have put the title of the thread faith vs. science!!!! They should have simply had an evolution only thread!!! I do not know all the ins and outs of evolution, I have largly ignored it in my life. People are free to choose and believe anything they want, I am here simply to present faith. Despite all the low blows some seem not to notice!!!
Verlch, you're remarkably dense. You are also apparently a liar, since earlier you've stated that you're here to debate, and not "simply to present faith."
Debate involves taking one side of an argument, defending it by presenting facts to back up your claims, and critiquing your opponent's arguments either against your position or for their position. Simply presenting your position involves, well, simply presenting your position.
In addition, since there's nothing to discuss when "present[ing] faith", there's no point in making more than one post. Once you've said "Evolution couldn't have happened; God made the world" or whatever, why should you care if we all rip that dumb statement to shreds? You've presented you faith, and who cares if we don't share it? Right? Unless-- get this-- you're here to debate if your statement is indeed correct.
So which is it? Either A) you're here to present your faith, in which case you've accomplished your goals and should go away, or B) you're here to debate, in which case you have done a miserable job and you should probably consider going away anyhow unless you can better present your case, or C) you're a troll, in which case you should go away because you're annoying.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 06:41:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Best I can tell, that would make Leviticus roughly concurrent with the early date of the (fictive) Exodus.
Right, but I don't think that the scholarly community would place its (or that of Exodus, for that matter) composition so early. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 09:45:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you have ignored it, why then do you think you can speak intelligently about it? How then, after a life spent ignoring evolution, can you claim it is false or a lie?
I attack the concept. The facts we can't observe it, and the speculation why you can't observe it. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 11:05:30 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
I attack the concept. The facts we can't observe it, and the speculation why you can't observe it.
You attack a lie about evolution, and not evolution itself. Nobody speculates about why evolution can't be observed, because it can be observed. You've been directed to the evidence already. You must have ignored it.
Apparently, you can't be bothered to "know thine enemy," and so you attack only a silly caricature of it which is only believed to be the real thing by others like you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 11:21:47 [Permalink]
|
| I may be thinking naaive here, or just wanting to stick to stereotypes, but a person on the "faith" side in a forum devoted to the "science" side ought to expect a few attacks. Even if most responses are not attacks at all, just passionate outbursts. |
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 11:25:39 [Permalink]
|
You attack a lie about evolution, and not evolution itself.
Dude we have been over this a million times!!! What can of worms did Darwin open and why am I a fanatic for not believing my species used to be covered in hair and eat lice of each other day and night! There is nothing exaulting and wonderful about evolving, bottom line. And yes I am a bit fanatical about my believes, I am full of passion and love for it! So I don't hate you, why don't you guys abmit your true lifes passion, you hate Christians and Jews. Only based on our believe in God, and our origins from Him, and if you don't hate them, then you like me. You might then quite calling me a liar, and start saying, we just don't agree on the 'orgin of our race.'
When you mock the bible, or attack it, I don't call you a liar!! I never have or will!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
| Edited by - verlch on 06/23/2004 11:27:37 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
