Annoying long-winded anti-science morons

[ntstlkr]

In fact, in human history nothing has
inspired people to be moral more than religion.

It is troubling to think that someone could find the millenias long persecution of the Jews, or the witch burnings, or something like the Thirty years War morally inspiring. Ok, thats not what he said. But isn't it rather obvious that history is filled with even more circumstances and events where "moral" people committed inummerable acts of violance and depravity, all in the name of religion?

Actually, it is more troubling that we are having to deal with this, and that it seems to be increasing even, this turning away from rational thought, reason and logic. That standing on the cusp of a fantastic future that writers of the past could only dream of, we have this animosity, this hostility towards science.

[Darth Wong]

If you do a nameserver lookup on his IP address, you will find that it resolves to neb.res.rr.com, which means he's a residential user in Nebraska, using Road Runner for an ISP.

In short, this kind of idiocy is not surprising. He's from Nebraska. We're talking about a redneck state where the voters overwhelmingly banned gay marriage by constitutional amendment way back in 2000, long before it even became a hot political issue.

[ntstlkr]

I know maybe it's my own fault trying to rationalize this but is it a sickness, a mental derrangement? Yeah there's stupidity, there's idiocy yes, but this is something like a purposeful and willfull wallowing about in ignorance, and being proud of it to boot.

Are they truly mad?

[Zero]

Just take a look at what their holy book teaches them. They angered the Gods by learning of good and evil. They angered the Gods throgh knowledge, so you must expect some sort of anti-academic will. And science will not accept their God as an agent in its processes, because there's no reason to do so. They find this offensive, because any man will want to hold his beliefs to be perfectly rational, and in line with reality, especially when so much of their sense of identity and belonging is derived from it. The whole bit's quite a disaster, really, and worse, it's been quite successful in terms of replicating itself in the minds of many many people. Bloody terrifying, I think.

As for my uncle, he's one of those Nebraska hicks, as is my mother, which is probably why she attempts at all times to make me feel as left out and awkward as possible. There's christian hospitality for you.

And so many bloody people truly believe that these old myths have anything to do with morality...

[Darth Servo]

I find it completely hypocritical that when talking about Christianity leading to morality, he implies that we shouldn't judge Christianities by its followers who commit atrocities while at the same time decrying Materialism because of the atrocities of Communism; precisely the SAME thing he says we shouldn't do with Christianity.

[Darth Servo]

The latest from our fundie friend. I know there haven't been posts in this thread for a while but I don't feel this would be thread necromancy since it IS new relevant information.

I find it interesting and very telling that I did not cite authority but quoted a statement by St. Augustine and then illustrated factually that it was true. He predicted that science would lead to materialism and that is what happened. You are proof. The reason that denying God is not logical (Occam would never have denied God's existence) is because materialist explanations are completely inadequate to explain the ordered universe. Random changes create chaos not order. Anyone who argues that they can adequately explain the existence of the material universe without God is merely deluding themselves. The greatest problem comes at the beginning. Nothing cannot create something. Thus, the Big Bang either says that nothing created something which is impossible or that something already existed and then the question becomes what (or who) created that. As the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, and every other holy book explain, materialists merely delude themselves and in the end are forced to rely on faith. A faith rooted in mere prejudice against religion and a desire to deny the reality of sin. Materialists want to make sin merely an opinion with no objective basis and yet history tells a far different story. Sin hurts other people that is why it is sin.

I must be honest that scientifically you do not seem very aware of the problems with evolution that evolution scientists like Stephen Jay Gould are very aware of. Why is there Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and "hopeful monsters" if the evidence for the theory is so over-whelming? Why is the theory collapsing of its own weight and lack of evidence that is not circular? Why are more scientists living up to their profession and actually questioning these unproven assumptions? Overall, you haven't shown much of an open mind and ability to learn.

You can cite the sins of Christianity all day long but what about the rest of the world? Of course, they had no slavery, warfare, imperialism, human sacrifice, torture, patriarchy, racism, exploitation, and any other evil you can mention. Obviously, they were perfect and Christian influence only could have made things worse. If you really believe that then you don't know much about other cultures. And you show a great deal of arrogance about peasants. My point was not that they knew everything but they knew a lot more about their life than a modern expert does. My advice would be that you should study a lot more about philosophy and religion and if you are going to be a materialist at least do it from knowledge and not ignorance.

[Montgomery Burns]

release the hounds

[MB]

As usual, feel free to tear it apart.

[Anguirus]

I must be honest that scientifically you do not seem very aware of the problems with evolution that evolution scientists like Stephen Jay Gould are very aware of.

I'm not under the impression that Mr. Gould is aware of anything right now...

Why is the theory collapsing of its own weight and lack of evidence that is not circular

And all the creationist "theorists" agree, of course! That's why Hovind, AiG, and ICR DON'T dispute each other! Oh, wait.

Ugh, I'm too tired to do anything more. It's pointless.

[Rocker5150]

"Nothing cannot create something."


Is quantum electrodynamics the answer to that? Just today I was reading that subatomic particles can randomly appear through a vacuum fluctuation. It came from a paper entitled 'The Big Bang Argument for the Existance of God', which pretty much rips up the claim that a supernatural being is behind the big bang. I know very little about physics, but it seems to be a perfect response to those fundie clowns who seem totally unwilling to even make an attempt to learn scientific principals and explainations.

It is a great read, and can be found here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... gbang.html


-Kevin

[GeneralTacticus]

Besides, doesn't that argument fall down simply because it can't explain who or what created God?

[Anguirus]

^ Exactly. If the universe must have been created, so must its creator. Who created the creator? That's the logical extension of a belief that complexity = creation.

[DPDarkPrimus]

^ Exactly. If the universe must have been created, so must its creator. Who created the creator? That's the logical extension of a belief that complexity = creation.

Special Plead About God Not Having To Be Created.

[Wyrm]

I find it interesting and very telling that I did not cite authority but quoted a statement by St. Augustine and then illustrated factually that it was true. He predicted that science would lead to materialism and that is what happened.

The exact quote you gave is:

"For there are some individuals who, having abandoned virtue and not knowing what God is nor the majesty of His eternal and immutable nature, suppose themselves to be engaged in a great enterprise when they busy themselves with intense and eager curiosity exploring that universal mass of matter we call the world... For it is by such desire that the soul is deceived into thinking that nothing but matter exists, ..."

First of all, you don't have to abandon virtue to be a materialist. This is just fundie bullcrap. It's only necessary to abandon virtue in this way if "virtue" includes "submitting to the Great Sky Pixie." However, this definition is not shared by all English-speaking people, or indeed by most christians. Rather, they use an alternate (and more properly defined) definition:

virtue:

1. moral excellence; righteousness.
2. a specific example of moral excellence.
3. chastity, esp. in a female person.
4. an admirable trait, as in a person's character.
5. power; efficacy.

Notice that NONE of them mention God. Therefore, one can be virtuous without appealing to God. No, "moral" does not have any specific connection to God either. (You fundies think you have the monopoly on morality. Hah, I spit on your notions!)

Secondly, if God has no demonstratable effect on the material world, then of course we must exclude him from consideration. It's easy to figure out a way that God could be scrutible by material means (for instance, him coming down from on high to declare "I am here" would be a great start). So, in other words, St. Augustine said that science would lead to materialism because he knew that God was not materialistically demonstratable.

Thirdly, the people who were engaged in this "great enterprise" that St. Augustine referred to were indeed engaged in a great enterprise. It is science that has brought you all the wonders of washing machines, detergents, plastic, TV and all the trappings of modern society. Including a wonderful little gadget called a COMPUTER!

With faith, we can only sit back and let shit happen to us in our ignorance, shrugging it off as "God's will." With science, we achieve understanding, and perhaps a little bit of control, and a shitload of nifty toys! Gee, science sounds more like a deal, don't it?

The reason that denying God is not logical (Occam would never have denied God's existence) is because materialist explanations are completely inadequate to explain the ordered universe.

Then how do you explain that thing your pecking on right now? It's a child of materialistic thinking.

Random changes create chaos not order.

There's a non-random element to evolution. It's called "natural selection."

Anyone who argues that they can adequately explain the existence of the material universe without God is merely deluding themselves. The greatest problem comes at the beginning. Nothing cannot create something. Thus, the Big Bang either says that nothing created something which is impossible or that something already existed and then the question becomes what (or who) created that.

What about God, then? If nothing cannot create something, then where did God himself come from? If God is something, then by this logic something had to create God: a God of Gods. But then, being something, something would have to create the God of Gods: a God of God of Gods. Then you must postulate a God of God of God of Gods, and then a God of God of God of God of Gods, a God of God of God of God of God of Gods, a God of God of God of God of God of God of Gods... ad infinitum. But if God is nothing, then if he created the universe, then nothing definitely does create something, and you've destroyed your entire argument. Occam's razor then dictates you must jettison God and say that the universe was created ex nihilo because it's the simplest explanation.

As the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, and every other holy book explain, materialists merely delude themselves and in the end are forced to rely on faith. A faith rooted in mere prejudice against religion and a desire to deny the reality of sin.

I don't deny the reality of evil. But I regard it as different from the victimless "sins" that your God hands us from on high, mostly consisting of God-gratifying kowtowing. In fact, many things you consider "sins" are not evil in my eyes, and a great deal of what your traditions consider "reverent behavior" fall under my "evil" catagory.

As to relying on faith? Where did that come from? If anything, materialism is the lack of faith in the unseeable. You don't have to have faith in what you can see with your own two eyes, or what you can measure with your instruments. You don't need much faith to believe in a punch in the nose.

Materialists want to make sin merely an opinion with no objective basis and yet history tells a far different story. Sin hurts other people that is why it is sin.

Most of what the Christan fundamentalists catagorize as "sins" are quite victimless and hurt no one. I'm a materialist and I find hurting other people abhorrent. On the other hand, your tradition has DO NOT SUFFER A WITCH TO LIVE! {Exodus 22:18} Your tradition has the crusades, missionaries, persecution of Jews, the justification of slavery, and a whole slew of inhuman atrocities. How is that not hurting people?

I must be honest that scientifically you do not seem very aware of the problems with evolution that evolution scientists like Stephen Jay Gould are very aware of. Why is there Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and "hopeful monsters" if the evidence for the theory is so over-whelming?

You are misinformed. The bickering you see is quite normal in healthy sciences. Scientists are paid to try to shoot down each other's ideas. They're paid to bicker about the nitty-gritty details. Physicists are bickering about the nitty-gritty details of quantum mechanics and general relativity, but this does not indicate that the whole ediface is about to come tumbling down any minute.

Why is the theory collapsing of its own weight and lack of evidence that is not circular?

Who told you this horse hockey? Your creationist friends at the ICR? Your minister? Let me tell you this, friend: they wouldn't know a circular argument if it walked up to them and bit them on the leg.

How do I know this? Their entire creationist ediface is based on a circular argument!

1. God exists, because the Bible said so.
2. The Bible is right, because it is the word of God.

THAT... is a circular argument.

Why are more scientists living up to their profession and actually questioning these unproven assumptions?

Again, who fed you these lies? Scientists have always been bickering about the details of their theories, but such bickering is not the same as questioning the basic assumptions. Last time I checked, the scientific community was still firmly entrenched in the assumption of materialism, and only the fringe we like to call the "kooks" question that assumption.

Overall, you haven't shown much of an open mind and ability to learn.

Funny you should say that, as you have shown no proficiency to learn the theories you are supposedly arguing against, rather you are trying to set up prefabricated strawmen to knock down and claim victory.

You can cite the sins of Christianity all day long but what about the rest of the world? Of course, they had no slavery, warfare, imperialism, human sacrifice, torture, patriarchy, racism, exploitation, and any other evil you can mention. Obviously, they were perfect and Christian influence only could have made things worse. If you really believe that then you don't know much about other cultures.

Other cultures have had their fair share of atrocities and evil, but, and this is the main point, the Christian world was/is no better.

And you show a great deal of arrogance about peasants.

And rightly so!

My point was not that they knew everything but they knew a lot more about their life than a modern expert does.

They barely knew how to eke out an existence! They knew nothing about how their world worked, just what rituals they had to do to make things happen in their world, which is an entirely different thing! They knew if you put seeds (A) into fallow ground (B) and till it with hoes (C), while waiting for sunlight (D) and rain (E) to fall on it, then eventually they would get crops (F) and be able to make food (G) to eat and survive.

And even then it didn't work all the time! Peasants were frequent victims of starvation and disease, famine and plauges, and the whims of their lords, all the while being spoonfed the kind of age-old nonsense you've been fed all your life and expecting some kind of great (but by no means certain) reward for all their years of toil and suffering... the perfect pyramid scam!

My advice would be that you should study a lot more about philosophy and religion and if you are going to be a materialist at least do it from knowledge and not ignorance.

I am a materialist from knowledge. I know exactly what I'm getting into. You, however, have known naught but the ignorant dogma of your forefathers and your clergy. You demonstrate your ignorance of the concepts you attempt to argue against by putting forth these strawmen that we've seen a billion times before. Your camp has turned out nothing new in millennia; even this recent "Intelligent Design" junk is just Paley's Watch in new clothes.

You are as ignorant as those peasants of old, and I laugh at you!

[Wyrm]

^ Exactly. If the universe must have been created, so must its creator. Who created the creator? That's the logical extension of a belief that complexity = creation.

Special Plead About God Not Having To Be Created.

So why not just cut out the middleman and have a special plead about the universe not having to be created?

Oh, wait. God is Special! Of course! The universe isn't Special because God created it and he can create another. Of course! Of course!

[Morilore]

The greatest problem comes at the beginning. Nothing cannot create something. Thus, the Big Bang either says that nothing created something which is impossible or that something already existed and then the question becomes what (or who) created that.

This really just goes to prove how small this creature's mind is. He seems to be literally incapable of wrapping his barely-conscious braincells around such a concept as "it always existed."

[Metatwaddle]

The greatest problem comes at the beginning. Nothing cannot create something. Thus, the Big Bang either says that nothing created something which is impossible or that something already existed and then the question becomes what (or who) created that.

This really just goes to prove how small this creature's mind is. He seems to be literally incapable of wrapping his barely-conscious braincells around such a concept as "it always existed."

I don't think so. I think he thinks God always existed. His argument falls apart when you consider the double standard: someone had to create the universe, but nobody had to create said someone.

[Darth Servo]

I find it interesting and very telling that I did not cite authority but quoted a statement by St. Augustine and then illustrated factually that it was true. He predicted that science would lead to materialism and that is what happened. You are proof.

But that was only one of TWO points you were making with that quote. The OTHER was that Christianity led to greater morality and the only thing you had supporting that claim was the statement's say-so. That IS appealing to authority whether you admit it or not. ANYTIME you use a quote as the basis of an argument, you are appealing to authority. The only time that is valid is opinion polling.

(Occam would never have denied God's existence)

Occam did believe in God but he ALSO declared that there was no logical reason to do so. He argued that it was impossible to deduce God's existance from reasoning and it was 100% faith.

The reason that denying God is not logical is because materialist explanations are completely inadequate to explain the ordered universe. Random changes create chaos not order.

Justify your assumption that the universe is ordered. Complexity is NOT the same thing as order. In fact the two tend to be inversely related. The MORE complex somethign is, the LESS ordered it is. SIMPLE systems are highly ordered. Complex ones are not.

Anyone who argues that they can adequately explain the existence of the material universe without God is merely deluding themselves.

Anyone who thinks yopu've provided an accurate description of the scientific principles of the universe is deluding themselves. Enough strawmen already.

The greatest problem comes at the beginning. Nothing cannot create something. Thus, the Big Bang either says that nothing created something which is impossible or that something already existed and then the question becomes what (or who) created that.

False dilema fallacy. You completely ignore the third possibility that the universe has always existed. I already explained that time does not pass inside a quantum singularity such as is thought to have been the source of the big bang. Your ignoring this point will not convince anyone.

But if EVERYTHING must have a creator then tell me, who created God? God (if he/she/it exists) qualifies as "something" and therefore by YOUR logic, must have been created by something else. The alternative (under your logic) is that God is nothing and therefore does not exist.

As the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, and every other holy book explain, materialists merely delude themselves and in the end are forced to rely on faith.

Appealing to authority and empty name dropping. How do you know all those holy books completely deny materialism? Why don't you try providing quotes from those other holy books? And while I admit I'm not very familar with the Koran, Bhagavad-Gita and the other holy books you mention, I DO know that the Bible contains so many scientifically ludicrous claims, anyone who tries to use it as evidence should hang his head in shame.

According to the Bible, the Earth has four corners, pillars and a foundation complete with cornerstone (which led to the idea that the Earth was flat even though the ancient Greeks figured out it was round)

According to the Bible, the Earth does not move and the SUN travels in its path through the sky. The sky is a hard dome that holds back the rain, with the stars as little pricks of light in that dome. These claims lead directly to the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe.

According to the Bible, you can cure disease with animal sacrifice.

According to the Bible, insects have only four feet instead of six, bats are birds and whales are fish rather than both being mammals.

For more information on the scientific absurdity of the Bible, go here:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

A faith rooted in mere prejudice against religion and a desire to deny the reality of sin.

Funny how the scientists of the world for the most part live quiet peaceful lives while the religious fanatics are continually blowing up the buildings or groups they don't like.

Materialists want to make sin merely an opinion with no objective basis and yet history tells a far different story. Sin hurts other people that is why it is sin.

And THAT is precisely what "materialists" (the correct term would be secular humanists but you've already demonstrated you lump things together needlessly to make hasty generalizations) base their ethics--the good of humanity.

Compare this to Christianity which makes countless victomless actions into "sins" like working on the sabbath. Who does that harm? Who is hurt by taking God's name in vain? The Bible even says that if an engaged woman is raped but doesn't cry out, she should be killed. I guess the biblical God couldn't be bothered to think of reasons why a woman being raped wouldn't scream, like the rapist has a knife to her throat. The Bible says children who curse their parents should be killed. Is THIS the kind of morality you want mankind to return to?

I must be honest that scientifically you do not seem very aware of the problems with evolution that evolution scientists like Stephen Jay Gould are very aware of.

I'm VERY aware that dishonest creationists have DISTORTED the natural debate and discussion that occurs within the scientific community as "problems". They don't all agree on some of the finer details but you will be hard pressed to find any statements from mainstream biologists that says evolution isn't sound (that wasn't taken out of context).

Scientific journal articles will OFTEN begin by stating a previously unsolved question about evolution and THEN go on to describe thier solution to the problem. Creationists quote the part where the scientist describes the problem but NEVER the proposed solution.

I'll quote from an acauaintence of mine to better illustrate the point, "No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless."quoted from "A Breif History of American Fundamentalism" by Yefim Galkine

Why is there Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and "hopeful monsters" if the evidence for the theory is so over-whelming?

I could just as easily ask why are there Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventitst, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentacostals, etc, etc, etc if the Bible is the wonderful, reliable text you say it is.

Why is the theory collapsing of its own weight and lack of evidence that is not circular?

Its not. And you have YET to show that the evidence for evolution is circular. I challenged you to show it was in my first Email. You have consistantly ignored that challenge.

Why are more scientists living up to their profession and actually questioning these unproven assumptions?

You have not shown that this was the case. You simply did more name dropping (Gould) and exaggerate but you didn't show HOW he questioned the underlying principles of evolution or even that he did. Your say-so is not evidence.

Overall, you haven't shown much of an open mind and ability to learn.

I have an open mind to facts and logic. I do not have an open mind to fairy tales.

You can cite the sins of Christianity all day long

YOU brought up the point about Christianity leading to greater morality. I simply showed that your claim was false.

but what about the rest of the world? Of course, they had no slavery, warfare, imperialism, human sacrifice, torture, patriarchy, racism, exploitation, and any other evil you can mention. Obviously, they were perfect and Christian influence only could have made things worse. If you really believe that then you don't know much about other cultures.

I never denied that those other societies had problems. Don't put words in my mouth. Its not honest. Of course they weren't angels. I simply refuted YOUR claim that Christianity did better.

And you show a great deal of arrogance about peasants.

Why should anyone not look down on them? They were ignoramouses. Thats WHY they were peseants in the first place. If they had any brains, they wouldn't be pesants. They would be the nobility. They wouldn't simply accept their lot in life as "God's will". They would have MADE SOMETHING of themselves rather than accepting everything blindly that was spoon fed them by the clergy and noblemen.

My point was not that they knew everything but they knew a lot more about their life than a modern expert does.

You have FAILED to show this is true in any way, shape or form.

My advice would be that you should study a lot more about philosophy and religion

My advice to you would be to learn what science truly says rather than parroting everything your preacher says about it.

and if you are going to be a materialist at least do it from knowledge and not ignorance.

I clearly know far more about it than you do since you keep insisting that it leads to immorality with out one SHRED of evidence that this is so.

You have completely ignored the following points:
1) Big bang does NOT say the universe was created from nothing and it never did.
2) Provide evidence that the evidence for evolution is circular. You failed to do so and merely repeated your empty claim that it is.
3) Show HOW materialism leads to immorality rather than just saying it does.

In addition, there is the new challenge to show that scientists really are abandoning evolution rather than just saying they are.

Can you handle that? Four points. Not much.

[wolveraptor]

As the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, and every other holy book explain, materialists merely delude themselves and in the end are forced to rely on faith.

Okay, this is the part that pisses me off. He hasn't even READ the Bhagavat-Gita: he can't even fucking spell it. It's really annoying when Joe Blow from Nowheresville USA goes on and on about cultures and religions he doesn't know a damn thing about.

The Bhagavat Gita has nothing to do with materialism; it's simply Krishna, the reincarnation of the Vishnu the Preserver, trying to convince Arjuna, a hero, that killing his cousins is okay. Granted, they were evil...I think. I haven't read the rest of the Mahabharata for a while. But anyways, it's all about doing your duty; it was Arjuna's duty to slay the evil doers, so he should do it. I personally don't get it, but there you have it.

[Darth Servo]

Going over the SAB once more, I found this little gem:

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Exactly how many fowls have four legs?

[Akhlut]

Going over the SAB once more, I found this little gem:

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Exactly how many fowls have four legs?

One. The hoatzin. Well, sorta. It only uses them for climbing and even then it loses its claws as it ages.

[Morilore]

The greatest problem comes at the beginning. Nothing cannot create something. Thus, the Big Bang either says that nothing created something which is impossible or that something already existed and then the question becomes what (or who) created that.

This really just goes to prove how small this creature's mind is. He seems to be literally incapable of wrapping his barely-conscious braincells around such a concept as "it always existed."

I don't think so. I think he thinks God always existed. His argument falls apart when you consider the double standard: someone had to create the universe, but nobody had to create said someone.

Yeah, his ARGUMENT falls apart, but God to him is just a magic anti-thought pill. It prevents him from trying to wrap his mind around eternity by just referring back to that undigestable pill crammed down his throat by his preachers and Sunday school teachers.

[wolveraptor]

Going over the SAB once more, I found this little gem:

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Exactly how many fowls have four legs?

One. The hoatzin. Well, sorta. It only uses them for climbing and even then it loses its claws as it ages.

Do we call our hands legs because at a young age we use them for walking? No. The clawed fingers are hands; they evolved from theropod hands.

[Zero]

Materialism CAN lead to immorality, if you come to value your possessions more then yourself, or other people. If you come to believe that you ARE what you own, then out of want, you may do many things that could be considered immoral. However, most people who are 'materialist' in the sense that this ass hole claims they are are rational people, who simply believe that the true good of humanity rests in this world and this world alone. He argues that we're immoral because we ignore the rules his God claims all men should follow, not because we do anything that actively harms humanity.

Often, though, a man who believes his life is all he has is less likely to give it up for the sake of a greater number of others, even if he may be a moral person in many aspects of his life. Conversely, a man who believes there is an after life is far more willing to blow himself to shit for the sake of hurting a bunch of innocents. And the second one is a situation that has come up quite a bit more then the first.

In essence, this guy's an ignorant stupid fuck. Maybe he IS my uncle...

[Darth Servo]

He's getting quicker in his responses but not any smarter. Just "preach, preach, preach"

Now this discussion is getting interesting. I must be honest, I don't have a preacher or even go to Church. My faith is based fundamentally on reason and facts and a pretty thorough understanding of the history of Western intellectual thought and a growing understanding of non-Western thought. My point would not be that Christianity has been perfect, and I believe that Orthodox Christians suffered from many prejudices exposed by the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. But these were world-wide prejudices and you do not deny this. Christianity teaches that Jesus' message will improve all the nations of the world and through the Enlightenment this is exactly what has happened. The mechanism of this has not always been moral and has often relied on force, but it has helped eliminate or at least reduce things like slavery, racism, human sacrifice and the other things that I cited. While you would give the credit of this to opposition to religion, most of this was done by Christians. John Locke saw the spread of monotheism in the world as providence. "For even to the light that the Messiah brought into the world with him, we must ascribe the owning and profession of one God, which the Mahometan (Islamic) religion hath derived and borrowed from it."(Locke, Reasonableness of Christianity, 59)

As for materialism leading to immorality, this is simple. The problem is that most societies have always believed in providence, that things happen due to the divine will. That is what I believe. So because I believe that the Bible came from God I see it as the owner's manual for life. Because God loves us, his rules are not to harm but to help us. But materialists reject this. They don't try to understand why people in the past believed what they believed but just criticize it. You can't understand anything if you just criticize it. In fact, the science of anatomy requires at least an assumption of intelligent design. When one studies organs, you have to assume that they have a purpose and then try to discover this. You say it makes no sense why people should not work on the Sabbath but the Bible is very clear about why. "But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work . . . . that they manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou." God gave people a day of rest. But the key to understanding the conservative morality of the Bible is to understand peasant life. They believed in temperance, having only what you need, and rejecting all luxury.

To see evidence of this understanding of ancient life, check out Plato's Republic pages 165-70. Now you probably think this is completely prejudiced and unfair but Plato explains that it is necessary unless we are to harm others. "Then we must take a slice of our neighbor's land, if we . . . . pass the bounds of the necessary and give [ourselves] over to the boundless getting of wealth. The next thing is we should go to war, Glaucon . . ." Here Plato says that one can only have more than they need if they take it from others through theft or conquest. So if this is true then maybe luxury was a bad thing. While you might think this is just Plato's delusional view, both Stoicism and Epicureanism agree with it and it is pretty much universal in any peasant society. The Bible makes a lot more sense from this point of view. In Samuel 1, 8 the Israelites ask for a king and God warns them that the king will be a tyrant and exploit them for his own luxury. Not a ringing endorsement of the morality of kings. But the Bible is more profound than Plato because Plato clearly rejects luxury but the Bible does not. This has made possible progress as people have been able to interpret the Bible differently as life changes. This is not a sign of weakness but strength and was something inherent in the Bible created long before any human had ever imagined an industrial revolution and modern technology.

An excellent example of materialism leading to immorality is the Renaissance. Epicureanism began to influence some educated people and they began to question the traditional rejection of pleasure and luxury. They began to see pleasure as good and rejected Christian warnings as ignorant. This inspired by the example of the Roman Empire developed the sexual double standard in Europe. Men argued that as long as they got married and had children, they fulfilled their sexual duty and could indulge their lust with women consensually. This led men to have sex with servants and slaves and some men such as southern plantation owners became real sexual predators. Nobles began to think it would be ok for them to enjoy more luxury and started to expand their estates by enclosing the commons and meadows for farming. Then their peasants could not use them anymore. But the materialism of modern hippies gave us free love that had all the negative effects that one would predict. But the main problem of materialism is that it causes people to criticize things rather than try to understand them. And it is the bias of materialists, the unwillingness to admit the possibility of God's existence, that makes me question their assumptions and the validity of their science. Too many scientists, get ill when they see the evidence pointing toward the existence of a creator. My own study of intellectual thought has shown me that people are quite prejudiced and easily twist their objectivity. So while you assume a number of scientists sharing the same assumptions means a lot for their validity, I disagree. It is far too easy for people to get it wrong especially when they reject possibilities out of hand.

As for evolution, beyond a few radioactive dating methods that do not provide conclusive evidence their is no proof that the earth is really old and that the rock layers reflect a time of millions of years. So assuming that fossils are old because they came from rock assumed to be old, is not proof but circular reasoning. Many other natural "clocks" give evidence of a much younger earth. But do you reject the mathematicians who said that the universe even assuming a very old universe is not old enough for one new species to evolve when assuming gradual changes?

As for evolution losing adherents, I am not saying it is a sea change but the holes in the theory and the lack of conclusive evidence are leading more and more people to question and even reject it. I reject it because I don't see any good unbiased reason to have accepted it in the first place. But why do evolutionists become creationists and not the other way around? We are all indoctrinated in evolution, but he key to understanding the staying power of an idea in history is how accurate it is and how well it works. The universities are still full of people who believe that Cuba is the model of the future even though Communism is dying a slow painful death. The fact that theorists embrace it means little compared to whether it works or not. And the evidence is becoming more and more overwhelming that materialism does not work. Also, the immorality inspired by the materialism of the hippies does not work. Even rock stars had to stop doing drugs and cut back on the alcohol or die. It is really hard for people to be real hippies who believe that sexual freedom will turn the world into a utopia because that obviously did not work and appears naive now. Now we have people who bitch about corporations and go to Grateful Dead shows. But over time, bad ideas die. Being wrong has consequences.

As for the Big Bang, you should study Kant. He made the simple point that categories of understanding like big and small or physical laws do not exist or operate outside time and space. So human beings cannot explain or really understand the spiritual world. God was not created by anything. As the Bible and Koran explain he is infinite and eternal. Creation only
occurs within time where something does not exist at one time and then does exist at a new time. God is Jehovah - he who was, and is, and will be. To ask who created God, makes the error of thinking about God in material terms that do not apply. So in terms of the Big Bang to talk about a thing creating time and space is silly and I would argue shows a basic philosophical error pointed out by Kant. I still feel you would deal with these questions better if you studied philosophy and saw why philosophers of the past rejected materialism. Science is a useful tool to understand the mechanical universe but it is limited to space and time. It can not achieve absolute knowledge because it can not say anything about the existence of God.

I took the liberty of breaking his email into paragraphs. He clearly doesn't have a clue what that is.

[Zero]

He actually fucking claimed that the renaissance was bad for morality? Does he believe that it's better that the common man was unlearned, unknowing, and had no power? What the fuck is this stupid fuckwad thinking? His notion of morality seems to be that things are enjoyable here in the real world.

For the love of God, I'd thought that when people said fundamentalists wanted a return to the dark ages, they were kidding... this is depressing..

[Anguirus]

Evolutionists becoming creationists? When did that happen?