Explaining Darwinism to an Accountant

[Mersenne]

“primary cause of terrorism”?

Can you go to a Catholic Church and identify the terrorists? The Priests? Nuns? Who are they?

I never said the priests or nuns were terrorists. But they do perpetuate ideas that are necessary for the terrorists to function.

[quoteIt may surprise you to know that the supernatural exists
[/quote]

It may surprise you to know that the supernatural can’t exist, by definition. Anything that exists is part of the natural world, that’s how the natural world is defined. If you define something as supernatural, you defined is as not existing.

and that science has limits.

So it does. What’s your point?

If you are not Catholic and do not accept this, that’s up to you, but please do not come here and make such a false accusation.

I didn’t make a false accusation, you put words in my mouth you know I didn’t say. You know, you could at least try to stick to your own moral standards, most of the people on this forum don’t seem to be able to go a post or two without lying.

 

[edwest2]

Please indicate which ideas they use that are necessary for terrorists to function.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mersenne]

Please indicate which ideas they use that are necessary for terrorists to function.

Peace,
Ed

I already have. That’s how my discussion with you started. Please don’t waste my time.

 

[redneck22]

It may surprise you to know that the supernatural can’t exist, by definition. Anything that exists is part of the natural world, that’s how the natural world is defined. If you define something as supernatural, you defined is as not existing.

What about information? Is that “natural”. If you think it is then can you show me an example where enough “information” is formed “naturally”.

 

[Mersenne]

What about information? Is that “natural”. If you think it is then can you show me an example where enough “information” is formed “naturally”.

So you think information is supernatural? Does it cast magic spells? Does information hang out with harry potter and go on adventures?

 

[redneck22]

"Mersenne:

It may surprise you to know that the supernatural can’t exist, by definition. Anything that exists is part of the natural world, that’s how the natural world is defined. If you define something as supernatural, you defined is as not existing.

So you think information is supernatural? Does it cast magic spells? Does information hang out with harry potter and go on adventures?

If “Information” cannot be found to be naturally occuring then by your definition it is “outside of the natural world” and must be supernatural in origin and therefore “does not exist”.

 

[The_Barbarian]

It may surprise you to know that the supernatural can’t exist, by definition.

Almost all of your fellow atheists will disagree with you. Even people like Richard Dawkins, who fears and hates religion, will not say that there can be no God.

He just doesn’t think that there is. But he can’t show that there isn’t.

 

[reggieM]

If “Information” cannot be found to be naturally occuring then by your definition it is “outside of the natural world” and must be supernatural in origin and therefore “does not exist”.

Excellent point.

 

[Mersenne]

If “Information” cannot be found to be naturally occuring then by your definition it is “outside of the natural world” and must be supernatural in origin and therefore “does not exist”.

You’re conflating different definitions of natural. Yes, information occurs in the natural world, this is the natural world, and it exists, therefore, it’s natural. It’s origin is in humans, humans are natural, depending on what definition of information you want to use.

 

[Mersenne]

Almost all of your fellow atheists will disagree with you. Even people like Richard Dawkins, who fears and hates religion, will not say that there can be no God.

He would say there can be no supernatural god.

He just doesn’t think that there is. But he can’t show that there isn’t.

But he makes it very clear that the likelihood of any god, even a natural one, is extremely low.

 

[wildleafblower]

He [Richard Dawkins] would say there can be no supernatural god.

Really? Richard Dawkins celebrates Christmas! He calls himself a “cultural Christian”. According to what you have stated he pretends to be something he isn’t and in the process redefines the word “Christian” to satisfy his own lack of sensibility, which includes his own fabricated God delusion. (I did read by the way his book The God Delusion which is plagued with hatred for Christians, especially Mother Teresa of Calcutta.) In the BBC article below Dawkins states, " I’m not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history." Yet, Dawkins and you wish to deny and mock Catholics their religious history which is based on our faith as I have posted in my last three messages.

**‘Singing carols’ **

*Prof Dawkins, who has frequently spoken out against creationism and religious fundamentalism, replied: "I’m not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions.

"This is historically a Christian country. I’m a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.

"So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I’m not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.

“If there’s any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists.” *
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian
Mersenne;4386454:

But they make it clear that when faith contradicts the evidence, the evidence must be wrong. That’s exactly what I’m talking about, and as we established earlier, it’s an absurd way to function. We’re talking about evidence and reason, not “the truth”. Of course they claim evidence never contradicts the truth, that’s just a fancy way of claiming that faith is never wrong. But faith is still a value if held in opposition to the evidence.

Seems like a mighty big contradiction on your behalf Mersenne. And a bunch of mumble jumbo pile of big hooey caked with insincerity considering what Richard Dawkins wrote as noted above. Let’s face it, I’m not impressed nor convinced that you or Dawkins truly know what the words truth , evidence,and reason entail except for spinning a web that fails to exist in reality. Please don’t get me wrong, I can respect you both, but be assured, if I were in a room with you and him, I would not hesitate to fully examine your motives against the Church and its people. Maybe sassy Dawkins and his clan of admirers might consider that they could be fueling acts of terrorism against Catholics thoughout the world. At least think about it.

Christmas is around the corner. May it be a peaceful and joyous time for every man, woman, and child whether rich or poor, remembering it’s a celebration about the birth of Jesus my savior. I love him more than mere mortal words can express. Peace be with you.

 

[edwest2]

To my brothers and sisters in Christ -

Once again we have clear proof that Darwinism is simply a cover for atheism. Science has been appropriated by atheists. And religion = terrorism.

The word “reason” has also been appropriated. Facts can be manipulated or ignored. Evidence that clearly shows the human being beginning life at conception is ignored.

As Christopher Hitchens stated: If he saw a miracle he would be inclined to not believe the evidence of his own eyes. But the Bible tells us: seeing, they do not see and hearing, they do not hear.

May we continue in peace and love, knowing the truth.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

To my brothers and sisters in Christ -

Once again we have clear proof that Darwinism is simply a cover for atheism. Science has been appropriated by atheists.
God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I appreciate your post but do not diminish the damage these people cause. Richard Dawkins has a foundation that sells a book to parents so they can teach their kids to live without God. Professor Dawkins was not just being impolite when he published the God Delusion - his goal is to eliminate God.

I suggest you visit marxist.com. Today is no different from the 1920s. A police state that wants to promote propaganda against all religious beliefs and superstitions from among the people. The schools they could control, it was parents and grandparents that were the problem. In the United States, the assault against the family and a have sex with anyone 24/7 belief system has created fragmented family units and kids from different mothers and fathers. The Communists failed in the U.S.S.R. and are now redirecting their energies here.

Nature magazine tells us that most leading scientists reject God. And Biologist PZ Myers will be happy to tell you how intimately science and atheism are linked. But don’t take my word for it, you can watch his youtube interview any time. He is a very polite sounding man but this did not prevent him from taking a eucharistic host, putting a rusty nail through it and throwing it in the trash. And he wants Christians to know “it’s just a f****** cracker!”

So, no. Flattery and politeness do not cover what they are really selling: universal disbelief, so an Atheist Technocratic State can manipulate people, headed by experts competing for different groups and winning, and losing followers as time passes. Communists also like Anarchy.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ender]

I’ve provided several. Why don’t you address them?

Sorry, I joined this thread late and perhaps I missed them. Which post are you referring to? I’ll be happy to address your examples.

Ender

 

[reggieM]

I appreciate your post but do not diminish the damage these people cause. Richard Dawkins has a foundation that sells a book to parents so they can teach their kids to live without God. Professor Dawkins was not just being impolite when he published the God Delusion - his goal is to eliminate God.

I suggest you visit marxist.com. Today is no different from the 1920s. A police state that wants to promote propaganda against all religious beliefs and superstitions from among the people. The schools they could control, it was parents and grandparents that were the problem. In the United States, the assault against the family and a have sex with anyone 24/7 belief system has created fragmented family units and kids from different mothers and fathers. The Communists failed in the U.S.S.R. and are now redirecting their energies here.

Nature magazine tells us that most leading scientists reject God. And Biologist PZ Myers will be happy to tell you how intimately science and atheism are linked. But don’t take my word for it, you can watch his youtube interview any time. He is a very polite sounding man but this did not prevent him from taking a eucharistic host, putting a rusty nail through it and throwing it in the trash. And he wants Christians to know “it’s just a f****** cracker!”

So, no. Flattery and politeness do not cover what they are really selling: universal disbelief, so an Atheist Technocratic State can manipulate people, headed by experts competing for different groups and winning, and losing followers as time passes. Communists also like Anarchy.

Peace,
Ed

Good post. Atheistic science (the vast majority of scientists) does not need any flattery or praise. God is very much offended by blasphemy and denial of His very existence. God is perfect justice as well as perfect mercy and love. The Book of Revelation spells it out quite well.

Richard Dawkins’ ideas are growing in popularity. His latest book sold millions of copies. Does he need the help of Catholics in order for him to sell more and become even more popular with uncatechised youth?

“Scientism” has a stranglehold on our entire culture. Because of very weak and compromising Catholics, faith is dying out and unbelief is on the rise.

Catholics who compromise with atheism become tools for the workings of evil. We can pretend that everything is fine and atheism is “not harmful” but that is just living in a fantasy world.

By grace, we have been given the “eyes of faith”. We have a wisdom that is above that of this world – above nature. The Holy Spirit teaches us all things – and we need to use those gifts to save souls, not keep them enslaved in the errors of materalistic-atheism.

If we surrender, we will be lost - even to “nice sounding” people like Richard Dawkins who are knowingly or not, doing the work of evil and destroying faith and love of God in the hearts of millions of people.

 

[reggieM]

According to what you have stated he pretends to be something he isn’t and in the process redefines the word “Christian” to satisfy his own lack of sensibility, which includes his own fabricated God delusion. (I did read by the way his book The God Delusion which is plagued with hatred for Christians, especially Mother Teresa of Calcutta.) In the BBC article below Dawkins states, " I’m not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history." Yet, Dawkins and you wish to deny and mock Catholics their religious history which is based on our faith as I have posted in my last three messages.

I agree.

 

[wildleafblower]

Once again we have clear proof that Darwinism is simply a cover for atheism. Science has been appropriated by atheists.

Hi Ed. Charles Darwin was a wonderful scientist. His greatest discovery was Natural Selection. Darwin was also extremely kind to Christians. His wife was a Christian. He was a posed and considerate gentle man. I really do like him.

Look at the number of scientists listed below from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for employment in 2006. I’m sure there are many people who do and don’t believe in God that have these jobs. We’ll never know who they all are, and it isn’t important to me as long as they do their job well and to the best of their ability. I do know many scientists that are from different faiths, agnostics and atheists that I consider to be my friend. I’ve actually been employed by scientists thoughout my life and worked side by side with them. They have treated me with great respect - kind and loving sort of folks without an ounce of meaness in them.

1. Medical scientists held about 92,000 jobs in 2006.
   [Please read the snips that have been removed to space contraints.]
   http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos008.htm
   [snip]
2. Biological scientists held about 87,000 jobs in 2006. stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm
   http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm
3. Agricultural and food scientists held about 33,000 jobs in 2006. [snip]
   stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos046.htm
   http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos046.htm

4)Physicists and astronomers held about 18,000 jobs in 2006.
[snip]
stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm
stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm

1. Geoscientists held about 31,000 jobs in 2006.
   [snip]
   stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos288.htm
   stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos288.htm
2. Environmental scientists and hydrologists held about 92,000 jobs in 2006.
   [snip]
   stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos050.htm
   stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos050.htm
3. Chemists and materials scientists held about 93,000 jobs in 2006.
   [snip]
   stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos049.htm
   http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos049.htm

Take care and may God bless you. Remember we are all God’s children though there are a few rebels (Dawkins as an example) in the bunch.

I appreciate your post but do not diminish the damage these people cause. Richard Dawkins has a foundation that sells a book to parents so they can teach their kids to live without God. Professor Dawkins was not just being impolite when he published the God Delusion - his goal is to eliminate God.

I suggest you visit marxist.com. Today is no different from the 1920s. A police state that wants to promote propaganda against all religious beliefs and superstitions from among the people.
[snip]
Nature magazine tells us that most leading scientists reject God. And Biologist PZ Myers will be happy to tell you how intimately science and atheism are linked. But don’t take my word for it, you can watch his youtube interview any time. He is a very polite sounding man but this did not prevent him from taking a eucharistic host, putting a rusty nail through it and throwing it in the trash. And he wants Christians to know “it’s just a f****** cracker!”

So, no. Flattery and politeness do not cover what they are really selling: universal disbelief, so an Atheist Technocratic State can manipulate people, headed by experts competing for different groups and winning, and losing followers as time passes. Communists also like Anarchy.
Peace,
Ed

Ed, I have to remind you that I’m an adult. I’ve already expressed my views about Dawkins religious affliction, which is extreme. His books were removed from bookstores where I reside. I note your constant irritability for those who aren’t believers of God or are believers who may disagree with you. Being polite to a person doesn’t denote flattery.

Nature Magazine took a survey of 1,000 scientists and 70 percent were non-believers. I have shown you that there are many more than 1,000 scientists. I know there are many from different faiths too including Catholics.

Ed, the difference between you and me is that I don’t watch video’s that are offensive to my intellect nor would I publicly announce to Catholics to watch a video of Myers or visit a Marxist website. As I’ve mentioned the people you speak about aren’t like the atheists or agnostics that I have or still know, remembering also their children are in both public and Catholic schools, as well as with other children of different faiths. They all play in my neighborhood and bring me laughter and joy. None are being brainwashed by the other. There is diversity within this harmony that co-exists between us. There isn’t a line between them and us where I live or visit in real life. I truly trust that God moves it in the right direction. So far so good in my neck of the woods.

Ed, I do understand your concerns. I think you worry way too much. Trust God! Have some FAITH!

 

[edwest2]

Who speaks for the Church or for the faith here? Who speaks for the Church or the faith in the secular world?

I have watched, over the last 40 years, my fellow Catholics gradually, slowly, subtly poisoned by the secular world. In the 1960s, my Catholic classmates were all frogs sitting in pots of cool water. Many of their parents worked for the Big Three automakers but many, like my father, were simple laborers.

I watched as their identity was replaced by external words and images. I watched the atheist radicals calling themselves Hippies demanding an end to civility (Let it all hang out, man.), unable to control the profanity coming out of their mouths, encouraging people to take illegal and dangerous drugs (Drop acid, man. Expand your mind!)

Then I watched as a small radical group demanded compassion for poor young women who would die at the hands of back-alley abortionists. “Please,” they said. “Please have compassion!” That was 1973.

Then, I watched, puzzled, as Adult Bookstores selling images of prostitutes began to appear all over. Freedom of expression! Lawyers were paid money to make this possible.

I watched television gradually turn into stories about more and more dysfunctional people. The National Organization for Women declared war on men. Gloria Steinem drove a wedge between men and women.

In the 1980s, I opened the local newspaper and saw dozens of ads for No-Fault Divorce.

But let’s jump to the present. The dirty, filthy, dysfunctional and perverted is currently being paraded around as entertainment. What’s on TV, what’s showing at the movies? Love? Romance? No - 24 hour, non-stop fornication and women portrayed as aggressive sexual predators. And comedians? Hours of sex jokes and comments about how messed up everything is. And the entertainment part would be what?

Not long ago, Time magazine ran a photo of an anonymous man in Washington, D.C. carrying a sign: America! Get off your knees!

As a Christian, I’m called to recognize the signs of the times. I encourage you, and everyone reading this, to do the same.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Almost all of your fellow atheists will disagree with you. Even people like Richard Dawkins, who fears and hates religion, will not say that there can be no God.

He would say there can be no supernatural god.

That’s not what he has written:

**`A serious case could be made for a deistic God’’.
**
blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/faithworks/index.php/heraldsun/comments/richard_dawkins_admits_a_case_for_god/

Barbarian observes:
He just doesn’t think that there is. But he can’t show that there isn’t.

But he makes it very clear that the likelihood of any god, even a natural one, is extremely low.

Then it’s hard to see why he claims a serious case can be made for a God.