Hey Stupid, It's Deism, Not Atheism

People who label themselves atheists are simply stupid, insecure, and lost little sheep following the teachings of greedy con artists and disinformation agents like Richard Dawkins...
Click to expand...

Funny, I was an atheist before I knew anything about Dawkins or Flew.
 
bwinwright said:
John G, It's just a good thing ignorant folks like you aren't flayed for being so incredibly erroneous because you would be screaming in pain right now.

Social Darwinism doesn't have anything to do with Darwin?

What was Darwin's original title for his horribly flawed and destructive theory?

ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.

JohnG, It's the "favoured races" part of the title....DUH!!!!!
Click to expand...

Newton's theory of gravity leads to bridge suicide too.
 
Last edited:
phunk said:
I hope you realize that 'race' has more than one definition, and the one you're assuming might not be the one that someone 150 years ago was using.
Click to expand...


True, but irrelevant in the context of this discussion.


If you actually took the time to read the book, it's quite clear how wrong you are.
Click to expand...


What are you getting at?
 
KingMerv00 said:
Funny, I was an atheist before I knew anything about Dawkins or Flew.
Click to expand...

I believed in the theory of evolution long before I realised I was an atheist. Partly because my parents also believed it. They were both Christians, but had no problem with science, like, I would say, most Christians in the UK. This supposed association of atheists with evolution seems a very peculiar one to me.
 
zooterkin said:
I believed in the theory of evolution long before I realised I was an atheist. Partly because my parents also believed it. They were both Christians, but had no problem with science, like, I would say, most Christians in the UK. This supposed association of atheists with evolution seems a very peculiar one to me.
Click to expand...

Evolution: It's a real big boogeyman for American evangelicals. It even scares the bejeebers out of a lot of the local Mormons. At least the stay at home moms around my neighborhood seemed to feel that way. I was, sadly, privy to many a breathless conversation concerning fear for their poor impressionable little baby poopykins (who were currently still working on formulating their first words) and how the evil public school might "indoctrinate" them with such horrors as evolution.

I don't get it, either. Accepting evolution doesn't cause automatic rejection of religious faith.
 
bwinwright said:
Zooterkin, you are cute with your dog vomit reference. I actually laughed out loud. Yet, anyone who fails to realize that Charles Darwin's "THEORY" is just that, a "THEORY", and that that "THEORY" is horribly flawed "is" like that dog of yours that continually returns to eat his own vomit.

In time, after enough people have awakened from their Darwinian/atheistic stupor, they will recognize Darwin's Theory of Evolution as perhaps the biggest hoax in the history of science.


Check out Tim Harwood because you have clearly been brainwashed by someone like Dawkins, who has an agenda which centers around brainwashing the gullible like you. DNA didn't need any intelligent direction, just like you don't need to think for yourself. All you need is D.A.W.K.I.N.S...

Perhaps the problem is you have already eaten too much vomit?
Click to expand...

Uhh, I got taught evolution by a succession of science and biology teachers. Not by Dawkins.
 
A random tidbit from the anti-evolution lobby:

"Charles Darwin was an atheist! Therefore, evolution is atheistic by itself"
or
"Charles Darwin was a theist (not a common saying)! His theory of evolution fully explains the Christian doctrine of suffering!"

The last time that I've checked, Charles Darwin was an agnostic late in his life. Being uncertain about the existence of a god does not equal atheism, theism or deism. Period.

Here's the source:

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041

Quote from the site:

"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
 
Last edited:
Paradox74 said:
A random tidbit from the anti-evolution lobby:

"Charles Darwin was an atheist! Therefore, evolution is atheistic by itself"
or
"Charles Darwin was a theist (not a common saying)! His theory of evolution fully explains the Christian doctrine of suffering!"

The last time that I've checked, Charles Darwin was an agnostic late in his life. Being uncertain about the existence of a god does not equal atheism, theism or deism. Period.

Here's the source:

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041

Quote from the site:

"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
Click to expand...

Darwin's relationship with religion and with life itself was complex:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100597929

I doubt there are many things capable of testing the faith of a person or motivating an individual in the way the loss of a child does.

Of course, I wouldn't say "he was an atheist because his beloved daughter died"...he wasn't even really an atheist...but to be an agnostic after studying as he had, coupled with the loss...I find his agnosticism unsurprising.

But, Darwins doubts about faith don't mean anything to the science of evolution and its validity. And there have been many, many other developments in the study of evolution since Darwin.
 
justcharlie09 said:
Darwin's relationship with religion and with life itself was complex:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100597929

I doubt there are many things capable of testing the faith of a person or motivating an individual in the way the loss of a child does.

Of course, I wouldn't say "he was an atheist because his beloved daughter died"...he wasn't even really an atheist...but to be an agnostic after studying as he had, coupled with the loss...I find his agnosticism unsurprising.

But, Darwins doubts about faith don't mean anything to the science of evolution and its validity. And there have been many, many other developments in the study of evolution since Darwin.
Click to expand...


Have you read David Quammen's The Reluctant Mr. Darwin? It is a neat book that focuses specifically on this time in his life.
 
I think the best you can say about Darwin was that he saw no need for any creator in his view of the world.

Even when Annie died, I don't think he privately or publicly announced agnosticism or atheism, in deference to his missus.
 
bwinwright said:
:D Hey Stupid, It’s Deism, not Atheism

People who label themselves atheists are simply stupid, insecure, and lost little sheep following the teachings of greedy con artists and disinformation agents like Richard Dawkins, currently the world’s most notorious atheist. Dawkins, a professor at Oxford, reportedly an expert in the sexual practices of farm animals and a devout follower of the racist Charles Darwin, has made a fortune selling his flawed and destructive atheistic philosophy to millions of pseudo intellectuals who falsely believe denying any god is somehow cool.

Richard Dawkins has replaced Anthony Flew as the world’s leading atheist, because Flew learned the scientific truth and now believes in deism. While both men have taught at Oxford, Anthony Flew is a real philosopher in pursuit of the truth while Dawkins is not. Anthony Flew has always practiced the philosophy of Plato’s Socrates who taught, “We must follow the argument wherever it goes.”

Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of God surfaced. The world of microbiology, especially the super sophisticated complexity of DNA, convinced Flew that a deity or super-intelligence is the ONLY good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.

Flew wrote a book about his conversion from atheism to deism based entirely on the latest developments in science. Read his book There is a God: How the world’s most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

In a letter to Richard Carrier of the Secular Web on 12/29/2004, Flew wrote, “I now realize I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.”

He explains how he was misled by Richard Dawkins claiming, “Dawkins has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter.” Why? I believe Dawkins is more interested in establishing atheism as the world’s true religion with himself as the self-appointed Pope.

In 2006, Flew joined 11 other academics in urging the British government to teach Intelligent Design in the state schools. In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said, “My deism was a result of a growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical universe.”

Flew went on to say, “And my own insight that the integrated complexity of Life itself-which is far more complex than the physical universe-can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.”

In addition, Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has been proven to be false. Of course, the greedy and deceitful folks leading the atheist movement certainly don’t want their sheep to learn the truth about Darwin. Simply check out David Wilcock and Tim Harwood. They will lead you to the truth about the many flaws in Darwin’s “theory”.

I am just embarrassed for the many stupid people, living in the 21st century, who continue to label themselves atheists in light of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Hey stupid, it’s Deism, not Atheism!!
Click to expand...


Just who or what is this "god" person/thing/deity you refer to? I mean, there are innumerable references to gods throughout the historical record, which one is the right one? Or are they all the right one? In which case, so what? What does/should it mean to us, here and now? What difference does believing in such a creature make to anything? Should I buy a lotto ticket?


M.
 
bwinwright said:
What was Darwin's original title for his horribly flawed and destructive theory?

ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.

JohnG, It's the "favoured races" part of the title....DUH!!!!!
Click to expand...

Of course bwinwright hasn't read the book, or he'd know that only a dozen words in the entire book specifically refer to humans.
 
quadraginta said:
I became an atheist not long after I developed an elementary school fascination with comparative mythology. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that there were people like Gould and Dawkins who agreed with me. :)
Click to expand...

A sentence that contains the word "Gould", "Dawkins", and "agreed." They said it couldn't be done. :rolleyes:

(Stephen Jay Gould was ALWAYS right, of course...)

Well, yes, they agreed on that materialist atheist thing, and also the evolution thing. The things that they disagreed on have several million degrees of less than nothing to do with the OP, if y'all are going to be like that. ;)
 
Maia said:
A sentence that contains the word "Gould", "Dawkins", and "agreed." They said it couldn't be done. :rolleyes:

(Stephen Jay Gould was ALWAYS right, of course...)

Well, yes, they agreed on that materialist atheist thing, and also the evolution thing. The things that they disagreed on have several million degrees of less than nothing to do with the OP, if y'all are going to be like that. ;)
Click to expand...

I wish Mr. Gould were still around :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom