Explaining Darwinism to an Accountant

[edwest2]

The author of The God Delusion said this? I hope everyone can understand why I’d be skeptical as to Professor Dawkin’s statement.

I only know the Richard Dawkins who appeared on television and said, “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.”

Deist? A not really god, god? It appears the Professor is softening his position for Public Relations purposes, and I doubt his sincerity.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

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.

Other independent surveys showed the same statistics that Nature Magazine did. Surveys work by taking representative samples – they don’t survey the entire population.

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.

I can respect that. But at the same time, I think that limits your ability to engage in public discourse on a website. You will understate the hostility that neo-atheism really has, simply because you don’t want to read their websites or watch their blasphemous videos. Then you go on to urge people to lighten-up about this matter. No, I think it’s very good advice for you to read the offensive material that spills out of evolutionists’ websites – the rank hostility to God and Faith can be experience on a daily basis. I would not recommend children or those new to the Faith to view such things, but I think you’re missing a major point. How could you ever be effective in engaging atheism without recognizing the hostility that is behind much of it? If you don’t want to confront or engage it, that’s understandable also and I can respect that as well. But I think you’d have to make a firm decision to avoid such conflicts here because you’re not really seeing the whole picture (by hiding away from the most negative aspects).

As I’ve mentioned the people you speak about aren’t like the atheists or agnostics that I have or still know

That may be true, but Dawkins, Harris, Myers and others are the most prominent, popular and influential atheists around today. That’s why the are really a problem.

 

[reggieM]

The author of The God Delusion said this? I hope everyone can understand why I’d be skeptical as to Professor Dawkin’s statement.

I only know the Richard Dawkins who appeared on television and said, “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.”

Deist? A not really god, god? It appears the Professor is softening his position for Public Relations purposes, and I doubt his sincerity.

Peace,
Ed

He is a very confused man. He has been embarrassed so badly in debates recently that his head is spinning. He has had a very comfortable ride thus far, cashing in on some hackneyed evolutionary atheism. The Expelled film really tarnished his celebrity status (he was very laughable in that film). He had a recent debate where a mathematician-believer ran circles around him. In the midst of the debate, Dawkins conceded that there was actually a good case that could be made for God (thus refuting his own public statements for the past several years).

He’s a sad character. He has done more damage through his followers and disciples than with his own nonsense.

 

[Mersenne]

**`A serious case could be made for a deistic God’’.
**

Diestic is not a synonym for supernatural. Perhaps he thinks a case for a deistic god could potentially be made, that doesn’t mean he believes in supernatural gods.

 

[Mersenne]

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

He didn’t redefine the word “Christian” he refers to himself as a “cultural christian” meaning he’s only christian in terms of the cultural aspects. And the heck does this have to do with anything I was saying?

Seems like a mighty big contradiction on your behalf Mersenne.

What? Where? Your reply made no sense.

 

[edwest2]

To reggie -

You are right to remind those new to the faith and people who are not adults to avoid watching PZ Myers videos or listening to interviews. But he really comes across as a nice, gentle man who thinks atheists should just nudge and push and get the word out about, you know - atheism. Meanwhile, Bill Maher does his Religulous movie. You know, that harmless thing where you mock people for believing. It’s all part of the Atheist Marketing Campaign. To ignore that would be silly and dangerous, both mentally and spiritually.

Can anyone identify a non-supernatural god? A deist god? (Nature spirits don’t count.)

Peace,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

Other independent surveys showed the same statistics that Nature Magazine did. Surveys work by taking representative samples – they don’t survey the entire population.

2.I can respect that. But at the same time, I think that limits your ability to engage in public discourse on a website. You will understate the hostility that neo-atheism really has, simply because you don’t want to read their websites or watch their blasphemous videos. Then you go on to urge people to lighten-up about this matter. No, I think it’s very good advice for you to read the offensive material that spills out of evolutionists’ websites – the rank hostility to God and Faith can be experience on a daily basis. I would not recommend children or those new to the Faith to view such things, but I think you’re missing a major point. How could you ever be effective in engaging atheism without recognizing the hostility that is behind much of it? If you don’t want to confront or engage it, that’s understandable also and I can respect that as well. But I think you’d have to make a firm decision to avoid such conflicts here because you’re not really seeing the whole picture (by hiding away from the most negative aspects).

3.That may be true, but Dawkins, Harris, Myers and others are the most prominent, popular and influential atheists around today. That’s why the are really a problem.

1. Reggie, do you have the surveys? I really would like to read them. THX One of my favorite pass times is studying surveys. True. I know far more kind scientists that are believers and non-believers. Of course, many true Christian scientists. Naturally, Catholic scientists too.
2. I’ve been engaging in discourse for upteen years. Haven’t had a problem. I’m well aware of the issues. Don’t feel compelled to provide support for Dawkins "meme’ any longer . The Theory of Evolution is a fact. I don’t think science is corrupted. Biology is taught in public and Catholic high schools without mention of God, which is not a problem. There isn’t a conflict between science and religion because science doesn’t deal with issues pertaining to God. That’s a good thing because God shouldn’t be on the chopping block.

Bye the way, I don’t engage in atheism. Not all non-believers are rude and say mean things to Catholics.

1. My issue with regards to Dawkins, Harris, Myers et al is not related to evolution. Personally, those particular men tend to be negative religious media hypers that shouldn’t, in my opinion, be given anymore air time so to speak. The people I hang around with don’t waste time on rehashing the negative stuff made by impolite people. It’s not healthy. Though I recognize the need to expose the false claims made by them. We should also speak out in defense for our right to love God -the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the Church when they happen to cross our path.

Mersenne;4394585:
He didn’t redefine the word “Christian” he refers to himself as a “cultural christian” meaning he’s only christian in terms of the cultural aspects. And the heck does this have to do with anything I was saying?

2.What? Where? Your reply made no sense.

1. Come on now. You as well are redefining the word “Christian”. I discussed this already in msg. 131. Best to reread it. Pray tell, what are the “cultural aspects” of a Christian that loves God? I’m eager for you to be the one to tell me, Mersenne, since you apparently know the mind of Richard Dawkins.
2. You seem to skirt around issues by tossing a ball of escape into thin air whenever you’re lost for words. Again I refer to msg. 131. Tell me please what is the one thing that draws you and Dawkins close to Jesus? I’m standing on tippy toes awaiting your reply. Thank you.

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

[snip]

God bless,
Ed

You’ve shared your life with us, Ed. We’ve seen your world in the entirety of that posting. You’ve experienced and saw a lot of things I never did see or do. We each have a different calling in life yet love “our” Church. My love for Jesus shines in corners of peoples lives and your’s too I’m sure. It’s far more important for me to bring Jesus to the table. Have him strengthen our Faith and understanding for those who don’t believe he is the Son of God. Remind us charity is patient and kind. And help me finish my article and complete that song.

 

[ricmat]

Since Dawkins seems to be of interest here, of late, here’s an article that just appeared today which discusses many of the issues that we’ve touched upon, plus a few more. Like this one…

Meanwhile, in the *Great Ape Project *and elsewhere, Dawkins has yearned for the discovery of a hybrid species between humans and chimps that could interbreed with both so that people would stop thinking that human beings are special.

This is another wedge that atheists are using to separate God and humanity.

That humans are special is obvious in any interpretation, literalistic, metaphorical, allegorical, or otherwise of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

 

[hugh_miller]

Since Dawkins seems to be of interest here, of late, here’s an article that just appeared today which discusses many of the issues that we’ve touched upon, plus a few more. Like this one…

This is another wedge that atheists are using to separate God and humanity.

That humans are special is obvious in any interpretation, literalistic, metaphorical, allegorical, or otherwise of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Regarding the disregard for human dignity and separation of God from Humanity all we have to do is view the “Philosophy of Death” as promoted by the newly elected Pres and VP and the vote for assisted suicide in the State of Washington. I lay these developments to the wide-spread acceptance of the religion of evolutionism in academia.

However I realize that many on these threads also accept the theory of evolution but would not have thier unborn child killed or tolerate and promote assisted suicide so I’ve composed a letter which I sent to my local newspaper. Perhaps you might write something similar to your paper. I’m at a loss as what to do as I spent hundreds of hours promoting the “Culture of Life” among both political parties. Here are my sentiments:

Letters to the editor

LET NO ONE DIE BY CHOICE!

Now that Senators Obama and Biden are now headed for the White House what will happen to the 35 year campaign to restore human rights to unborn children? For example how can anyone believe that Senator Obama will make a compassionate president when he has voted 100% of the time for all methods of abortion including partial birth abortion [stabbing a child in the neck and then sucking out his or her brain? Visit the Internet for the gory details].

Perhaps the solution is with the 98 % of Afro-Americans who reportedly voted for Senator Obama. Since there is a disproportionate number of Afro-Americans who abort their babies their religious leaders and attornies have an obvious obligation to band together and approach Obama with the evidence that the 1973 Roe vs Wade pro-choice decision was deceptive and needs to be eliminated.

They might be successful if Obama can be persuaded to see also the alien and unconstitutional philosophy of the Dred Scott Court decision of 1857 confirming the right to own slaves and the 1973 Roe vs Wade decision that permits abortion on demand. Both decisions made human beings subserviant to property rights and privacy rights. Slave owners could retain their slaves and mothers could have their unwanted pre-born children killed.

Perhaps he can even be persuaded to appoint supreme court judges that will reverse that erronious decision of 1973 while simultaneously promoting human rights for all mankind world-wide. He indeed would make a great president if he could be persuaded to promote the “Culture of Life” philosophy of “Let no one die by choice.” Good luck and may God bless those who will at least try.

 

[Namesake]

Regarding the disregard for human dignity and separation of God from Humanity all we have to do is view the “Philosophy of Death” as promoted by the newly elected Pres and VP and the vote for assisted suicide in the State of Washington. I lay these developments to the wide-spread acceptance of the religion of evolutionism in academia.

Is the “religion of evolutionism” the same as biologic evolution?

 

[edwest2]

Hello wildleafblower,

If Christians don’t proclaim the truth, who will? We need to engage the world as it is, and tell them the truth: that they are living in a fantasy world where:

There is no God.

Chimps are people, by their belief, not science.

Religion is evil and should be abolished.

That the natural world is all there is.

That one of their purposes in life is to come to Catholic forums like this one and encourage Christians to abandon their ‘magical thinking,’ ignore their mythology, and, hey, if you want to put up a Christmas tree, fine. But it means as much as that plastic Santa on the front lawn.

Wake up, my fellow Catholics. Jesus Christ died for you and for all men. He is not a symbol.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Hello wildleafblower,

If Christians don’t proclaim the truth, who will? We need to engage the world as it is, and tell them the truth: that they are living in a fantasy world where:

There is no God.

Chimps are people, by their belief, not science.

Religion is evil and should be abolished.

That the natural world is all there is.

That one of their purposes in life is to come to Catholic forums like this one and encourage Christians to abandon their ‘magical thinking,’ ignore their mythology, and, hey, if you want to put up a Christmas tree, fine. But it means as much as that plastic Santa on the front lawn.

Wake up, my fellow Catholics. Jesus Christ died for you and for all men. He is not a symbol.

God bless,
Ed

Your faith doesn’t have to depend on refuting the theory which forms the basis of biologic science. The reality of our universe won’t change just because you reject it.

 

[edwest2]

I didn’t know evolution explained the “reality of our universe.” It certainly doesn’t. And I hope everyone who’s been following this thread has noticed that religion, not science, is what’s at stake here.

On top of that, as clearly expressed by Cardinal Schoenborn and Pope Benedict, science has gone beyond its own self-imposed limits. It has become corrupted because leftists, anarchists, communists, free thinkers, brights and atheists believe science will give them the arguments they need to get what they want. Namely: gay marriage, abortion, legalized dope, no restrictions on porn and divorce, and euthenasia. And even though adult stem cells have proven treatments and solid science, embryonic stem cells.

The culture of death has only death as the answer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

I didn’t know evolution explained the “reality of our universe.” It certainly doesn’t. And I hope everyone who’s been following this thread has noticed that religion, not science, is what’s at stake here.

On top of that, as clearly expressed by Cardinal Schoenborn and Pope Benedict, science has gone beyond its own self-imposed limits. It has become corrupted because leftists, anarchists, communists, free thinkers, brights and atheists believe science will give them the arguments they need to get what they want. Namely: gay marriage, abortion, legalized dope, no restrictions on porn and divorce, and euthenasia. And even though adult stem cells have proven treatments and solid science, embryonic stem cells.

The culture of death has only death as the answer.

Peace,
Ed

What I mean is that you can’t change the way things really work. You can’t change the way gravity works and you can’t change the way evolution works. All we can do is observe.

I sure didn’t mean that evolution theory explains the whole universe. Evolution theory isn’t what you claim it is either. It’s science.

 

[redneck22]

What I mean is that you can’t change the way things really work. You can’t change the way gravity works and you can’t change the way evolution works. All we can do is observe.

I sure didn’t mean that evolution theory explains the whole universe. Evolution theory isn’t what you claim it is either. It’s science.

Gravity goes one way DOWN, all the empirical scientific evidence for biological evolution also only demonstrates it goes one way and that’s DOWN, which is no suprise since that’s what the Bible demonstrates.

 

[Namesake]

Gravity goes one way DOWN,

How do you account for the tides?

 

[redneck22]

How do you account for the tides?

The tide is turning on Darwinism

 

[Namesake]

The tide is turning on Darwinism

That isn’t even close to true. We are gaining more evidence all the time that Darwin was right. It’s really too bad that people think the theory of evolution is incompatible with religion because it isn’t at all.

Holding on to a religion that requires ignorance of established science is a very bad thing to do. That religion isn’t worth much because as we learn more about the natural world (universe) the religion is gradually destroyed.

Christianity need not be damaged by Darwin’s idea unless it’s an uninformed brand of Christianity.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Diestic is not a synonym for supernatural.

It is, unless you think God is not supernatural. But if you don’t, you have your own unique definition of God.

Perhaps he thinks a case for a deistic god could potentially be made, that doesn’t mean he believes in supernatural gods.

Of course. But he does admit that a good case could be made for a God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

“The tide is turning on Darwinism.”