Intelligent Design support letter to the editor

[edge]

It does accentuate my mighty thews of barbarian mightiness doesn't it!

(Gazes at self flexing in mirror)

Vanity.

Planet Earth under atheistic communism rule, killed more people than in all of Christianities history.

 

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by six7s
Maybe your common sense might help you read the next chapter of Romans, where Paul warns his readers of the folly in condemning others... it might just make you stop and think long enough to understand that "plane stupid" is what happens when blinkered fanatics believe that it is their divine duty to make repeated attacks on innocent people going about their private business http://www.internationalskeptics.co...te business receive its unqualified approval.

 

[articulett]

Vanity.

Planet Earth under atheistic communism rule, killed more people than in all of Christianities history.

You don't define regimes by what they don't believe--rather by the ideals that unite them... the faith they do have not all the stuff they don't believe in. North Koreans are communists and they believe in god... and they believe their leader is the son of him.

Men kill people... men form armies that kill people. Men form armies and use propaganda to get other men to kill people.

I'm sure the communists didn't believe in Santa Claus either, but I doubt it has anything to do with the atrocities they believed were worth committing. And, Hitler was a Christian.

You are the vain one-- you are the one who thinks you know what god wants. How much more vain could you be?

 

[six7s]

First, none of us are innocent. We all sin and fall short of perfection... That's why we are all in need of Jesus' Ransom sacrifice.

Please note that although you might want (need?) to believe that YOU need a saviour, many others (content to live and die in the tangibly real, mortal world) neither need nor want to rely on a fantastic myth as a moral compass towards a specified ideal of perfection

To suggest otherwise is naive, ignorant and, frankly, insulting

Second, the things which the Bible requires of us are not attacks. They are instructions on how to attain eternal life

Yeah... riiiiiiiight... and evidence for this 'eternal life' is to be found where? (besides within the Book of Circularity)

Third, Paul's admonition not to judge doesn't mean that we should approve of adultery, fornication, murder, or any other such previously condemned things

If you are implying that, without your book, we are incapable of thinking for ourselves, then you are deluding yourself

Fourth, Paul clearly tells us to listen to God's instructions as written.

So it's not the approval of sinful behavior he is asking for.

This is a 'point' worthy of enumerating?

Fifth: What we or anyone else decides to do morally is our private business-true. However, it is definitely not our business to try to impose our morality on the Bible via insisting that our private business receive its unqualified approval.

Ummm... I think you have missed the point of this thread, which began - using satire - to discuss of the abject absurdity in using an old, outdated book to support blatant lies as tools to teach our children how to view the world

Google Cache: Intelligent designs, January 6, 2008:

I would like to add my voice to those who have advocated the teaching of intelligent design (ID) in Florida biology classes. It is, after all, abundantly clear that a great many life forms are far too wondrous and intricate to have come about by purely natural means.

<snip/>

Microorganisms such as viruses and bacteria, which not only debilitate and kill animals millions of times their size, but can also alter their genetic structure to evade the best attempts by man to eliminate them.

Moving on to more complex life forms, we have perhaps the single most remarkable example of ID: the incredible cockroach. This astonishing animal can live for a month without sustenance, exist on nutrients in the glue of postage stamps, and withstand radiation doses 10 to 15 times that of humans.

Sadly, I must also express deep disappointment in the actions of my fellow men in regard to these life forms. We spend billions, nay trillions, of dollars concocting deadly chemical and biological agents to vanquish them. Who are we to destroy the creatures, which God, in His infinite wisdom, has chosen to design and create?

No, my friends, we must stop this senseless slaughter of the good Lord's handiwork, and instead, honor and venerate them. For by paying homage to these intelligently designed creatures, we pay homage to the intelligent designer.

HOWARD ELGISON
Longwood

 

[NobbyNobbs]

\

I don't recall bringing up gayness or the so-called gay rights. So I am presently in a quandary as to why this is suddenly thrust into the thread. But since it has, let me say that I personally have never tried to deprive any person, regardless of sexual preferences, of his human rights nor do I approve of anyone who does.

However, if asked what the Bible says on any given subject, including homosexuality, then I will be obligated to quote scripture. If asked whether I believe the scripture is right, I will answer yes. If the person then disagrees, I will acknowledge his right to his opinion. If I am then told that the Bible isn't saying what it just plainly said, I would probably ask why he
reads a book that annoys him instead of reading one that doesn't or better yet-try writing his own.

So, you have never tried to deprive anyone of his rights, regardless of sexual preference. And you believe the scripture is right. And the scripture says that homosexuality is an abomination. So, I'm a bit confused as to where you stand onthe issue of homosexuality.

So actually, what is needed at this point is statistical evidence to support either your view or mine. But I think that the exception to the proposed- Bible based only-generalization has proven the point.



True, some do feel that way. But again the provision of statistics is necessary in order to elevate your idea from it's present shadowy opinion status. For example, how many hold this opinion and how is this attitude distributed statistical among the various religions. That information would prove that you are either completely mistaken in saying that it is the predominant reason, or confirm your accusation that this is a predominant reason. As it stands, however, it remains to be proven one way or the other and makes your stupidity
belief seem trite.

Might I point out that I started my statement with "I believe" followed by the two possible reasons I was able to think of why people might not approve of homosexuals. I did not start out by saying, "It is a well-documented fact that....". What I wrote was my opinion, and in the face of evidence to the contrary, I am willing to amend it. But until then, I'm certainly entitle to it.

Stupidity given the premise but your premise is founded on the misunderstanding of what was said. You are confusing the catching with the literal catching of a disease. That is not the concept that was being hinted at. The concept hinted at is that close association with certain types of people will lead to an eventual imitation of their habits-be they bad or good. In view that the whole concept which you tag as stupid is really irrelevant due to this misunderstanding.

I haven't misunderstood anything. I meant exactly what you said I misunderstood. There are a surprising number of people who believe that you can become gay simply from hanging around with those who are. I've met several myself.

The right, and the wrong interpretations.

First, thanx for your calm and decent response. Second, please note that I was not the one bringing this subject into the spotlight and that my post was a response to an accusation
of being a homophobe and of bashing people who choose that lifestyle.

I think I may have been the one who brought up the issue of homosexuality, but I don't recall ever accusing anyone of being a homophobe. If I did, please point out where.

 

[D'rok]

Vanity.

Humour. (Attempted).

Planet Earth under atheistic communism rule, killed more people than in all of Christianities history.

No surprise that you trotted out that old fallacy. Although Planet Earth killing people is a new twist.

 

[articulett]

Beware: Planet Earth. It kills people. All people who have ever lived on planet earth have died or are in the process of doing so.

 

[RobRoy]

Beware: Planet Earth. It kills people. All people who have ever lived on planet earth have died or are in the process of doing so.

Not me.

 

[articulett]

Not me.

You're immortal? You weren't, by chance, conceived immaculately, were you?

And if humans are immortal, doesn't that mean that communists never really killed anyone?

 

[RobRoy]

You're immortal? You weren't, by chance, conceived immaculately, were you?

Mother!?

And if humans are immortal, doesn't that mean that communists never really killed anyone?

That logic would follow.

 

[PBTree]

Vanity.

Planet Earth under atheistic communism rule, killed more people than in all of Christianities history.

Maybe (I said maybe) it killed more but the big g killed just about every animal on earth (except for a farmer, his family and some animals in a boat), with one big flood.

I think he has the record..

 

[Ocelot]

First, none of us are innocent. We all sin and fall short of perfection.

Well I guess I'm not innocent. Either in the biblical sense of sin or under a more utilitarian ethic. I don't recycle as much as I should, don't give as much as I should to the third world and I did kill that hooker.


From a statistical sense I can understand your statement under the aforementioned utilitarian ethic. There are so many ways to be immoral and we're all weak. I find it almost unimaginably improbable that anybody could survive to adulthood with a perfect moral history.

However, one of my biblical sins is pride. I extremely proud of my 5 month old son. From a utilitarian point of view I don't find that particularly immoral. However it is this pride that stings a bit when I infer that you're suggesting that this innocent bundle of joy could be described as immoral.

I do think I understand the biblical point of view that he inherits original sin from his 300 greats grandmother who ate forbidden fruit. Perhaps this also means he inherits the sins of his rather mean great grandfather who marched with Oswald Mosley. However from a utilitarian point of view I don't acknowledge the inheritance of an immoral history.

As such I wonder if your view of sin is purely biblical or whether you believe that my son, who is barely capable of the cognitive functions required of morality is somehow tainted under the sense of ethics that as a non-believer I find more relevant.

Could you describe an action my son could possibly have performed which without recourse to biblical reference could be described as immoral? And if you can do that for this son, what about my first son who was stillborn?

 

[Ocelot]

Planet Earth under atheistic communism rule, killed more people than in all of Christianities history.

If true, this is a result of great secular advances in technology that have allowed the population of the earth to multiply exponentially. Look instead at the percentage of people killed by Christianity. What percentage of Mayans, or Aztecs? What percentage of Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians?

What percentage of Europe died under the Black Death and would that figure have been any different if the alchemists of the time who recommended effective disease control based around a theory of a contagion borne by rats were not burned as heretics for denying that the disease was a plague sent by God to punish the sinful.

 

[six7s]

Can you wriggle your way out of that, Radrook?

Thanks Ocelot. Nominated

 

[Radrook]

Well I guess I'm not innocent. Either in the biblical sense of sin or under a more utilitarian ethic. I don't recycle as much as I should, don't give as much as I should to the third world and I did kill that hooker.From a statistical sense I can understand your statement under the aforementioned utilitarian ethic. There are so many ways to be immoral and we're all weak. I find it almost unimaginably improbable that anybody could survive to adulthood with a perfect moral history.[/quote

True, but we can view us as sinless if we want him to based on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ died for those sins you mention, the sins I can mention in reference to myself and the sins anyone else can mention about himself. So we need not feel condemned, alienated, rejected by God based on our faults since he has provided a way around that.


However, one of my biblical sins is pride. I extremely proud of my 5 month old son. From a utilitarian point of view I don't find that particularly immoral. However it is this pride that stings a bit when I infer that you're suggesting that this innocent bundle of joy could be described as immoral.I do think I understand the biblical point of view that he inherits original sin from his 300 greats grandmother who ate forbidden fruit. Perhaps this also means he inherits the sins of his rather mean great grandfather who marched with Oswald Mosley. However from a utilitarian point of view I don't acknowledge the inheritance of an immoral history.

There is nothing wrong in being proud in the way you describe. The pride the Bible refers to is pride which directly interferes without acceptance of God as our creator. Feeling simple pride in our kids doesn't necessarily do that. Here is an article which sheds light on the subject:

Sin of Pride
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyJ...**http://www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm

About the sins which our ancestors commit, none are applied to us. What the Bible describes is an inheritance flaw of inherent inability to refrain from sin. This inheritance can be traced back to our first parents, Adam and Eve. But
what you describe, is different.

As such I wonder if your view of sin is purely biblical or whether you believe that my son, who is barely capable of the cognitive functions required of morality is somehow tainted under the sense of ethics that as a non-believer I find more relevant.

We are all unable to refrain from sinning no matter how hard we try. This inability we inherit just as we inherit eye color, height, hair texture, and all other physical attributes as well as intellectual potentials and limits. So it's not a direct inheritance of the sins committed by our ancestors. But an inheritance of inability to refrain from sin and as a consequence an inability to remain young, healthy, and live forever. That's why Jesus provided himself as a Ransom. So we could escape that condition.

Could you describe an action my son could possibly have performed which without recourse to biblical reference could be described as immoral? And if you can do that for this son, what about my first son who was stillborn?

Sorry about you son. I am a father as well so I can definitely sympathize with your sentiments in this matter. I don't view any human, unborn, a baby, child, adolescent or adult as tainted. I do believe however that we are all in need of redemption via Jesus Ransom because of inheriting the inability to refrain from sin.

Perhaps you might not see the difference in approach. But I feel that there is a fine distinction there I think-between viewing others as in need of redemption as opposed to being tainted.

Perhaps it's the connotative or implied general calloused haughty, holier than thou, outlook toward others which is contrary to Christian love for neighbor as oneself that is conveyed by the practice of invariably and immediately viewing others as tainted as opposed to the compassionate one of seeing the person merely as in need of redemption.

It might appear to be semantically trivial but I don't hink so.

 

[Radrook]

So, you have never tried to deprive anyone of his rights, regardless of sexual preference.

Trying to deprive a person of his freedom to choose his lifestyle? No, I haven't tried that. I have often given advice to my kids. I have also pointed out what the Bible says about a subject if asked. Does that qualify?

And you believe the scripture is right. And the scripture says that homosexuality is an abomination. So, I'm a bit confused as to where you stand on the issue of homosexuality.

First, again let me remind you that I did not bring up this subject. In fact, I tend to avoid it.
Neither did I use the word abomination, nor did I directly quote the scripture using that word. The reason? Because that is not the best approach.

As for the question you ask, It should be clear that I cannot approve any practice, be it adultery, fornication, loose conduct, spiritism, murder or the practice you mention since these are spoken of as sinful.

But that doesn't mean I have to be rude in my way of expressing this as you seem to be trying to get me to be. Which brings up the question about your own sentiments about the very issue you claim to be defending and in reference to your care about the feelings of the very people you say deserve respect.

[Might I point out that I started my statement with "I believe" followed by the two possible reasons I was able to think of why people might not approve of homosexuals. I did not start out by saying, "It is a well-documented fact that....". What I wrote was my opinion, and in the face of evidence to the contrary, I am willing to amend it. But until then, I'm certainly entitle to it.

Of course you are. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

I haven't misunderstood anything. I meant exactly what you said I misunderstood. There are a surprising number of people who believe that you can become gay simply from hanging around with those who are. I've met several myself.

So have I.

I think I may have been the one who brought up the issue of homosexuality, but I don't recall ever accusing anyone of being a homophobe. If I did, please point out where.

I didn't say you did. Please show me where I said you did.

 

[bokonon]

We are all unable to refrain from sinning no matter how hard we try. This inability we inherit just as we inherit eye color, height, hair texture, and all other physical attributes as well as intellectual potentials and limits. So it's not a direct inheritance of the sins committed by our ancestors. But an inheritance of inability to refrain from sin and as a consequence an inability to remain young, healthy, and live forever. That's why Jesus provided himself as a Ransom. So we could escape that condition.

"Of course you're sinful; I made you that way. The bad news is, that means I don't want to be with you. The good news is, after you're dead, you'll be able to refrain from sinning. Then we can be together!"

 

[Radrook]

If true, this is a result of great secular advances in technology that have allowed the population of the earth to multiply exponentially. Look instead at the percentage of people killed by Christianity. What percentage of Mayans, or Aztecs? What percentage of Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians?

What percentage of Europe died under the Black Death and would that figure have been any different if the alchemists of the time who recommended effective disease control based around a theory of a contagion borne by rats were not burned as heretics for denying that the disease was a plague sent by God to punish the sinful.

What makes you think that the persons behaving that way were practicing Christianity?

 

[Radrook]

Deleted

 

[Ocelot]

What makes you think that the persons behaving that way were practicing Christianity?

This was a comment I made regarding Edge's proposition that more people have died under secular rule than in the history of Christianity.

Clearly those people were killed by people who happened to be atheist. With the possible exception of millions killed by Mao's cultural revolution for failing to abandon their religious beliefs the vast majority we not killed by people "practicing" atheism. They were killed by people practicing totalitarianism.

Edge might say that their atheism is not irrelevant. "If God is dead, then all things are possible!” - Dostoevsky. He mistakes Religious conviction for the only reason we resist such genocide. He suspects (possibly correctly) that the religious imperative at least acts to calm mankind's occasional homicidal lusts. And I would counter with Stephen Weinberg's aphorism "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

He might be able to make some tenuous causal link between the fact of certain evil people being atheist and the evil they perform. He will not in the main, be able to say that they were practicing atheism.

I too can make a more than tenuous link between the actions of those evil religious people I cited and religion. They were placing faith in revealed knowledge above evidence. They acted according to their religious beliefs. They acted due to their religious beliefs. To suggest that they were not practicing Christianity is somewhat of a no true scotsman argument.

My argument may have weaknesses. I acknowledge them. however it was not supposed to be a cogent argument in it's own right. It was supposed to be a mirror of the argument Edge made. The weakness in my argument are inherited from the argument it copies.