Hey Stupid, It's Deism, Not Atheism

bwinwright said:
Simply check out David Wilcock and Tim Harwood. They will lead you to the truth about the many flaws in Darwin’s “theory”.
Click to expand...

I checked David Wilcock:
"David Wilcock is a professional lecturer, filmmaker and researcher of ancient civilizations, consciousness science, and new paradigms of matter and energy."
From here.

I dunno, but hardly a qualified opponent for a major scientific branch supported by millions of experts with PhD's and stuff on the subject.

But for the life of me, I couldn't find anything on this future Nobel Price recipient Tim Harwood. Help? I don't want to miss out on major scientific advances.
 
I was a 'something', but then became a 'nothing' wherein I realized the somethingness of nothingness, which tempted me into becoming a something again, by which time they wouldn't have me.

hence,

I remain
 
quarky said:
I was a 'something', but then became a 'nothing' wherein I realized the somethingness of nothingness, which tempted me into becoming a something again, by which time they wouldn't have me.

hence,

I remain
Click to expand...

I had exactly the same experience except for the parts that were different.

I joined a group only to find that the rest resigned.
 
An interesting blog and some links to an interview with Flew in the UK:
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/the-antony-flew-controversy/

I found the half hour interview to offer some fascinating insights. The two Christian apologists were very well spoken, and many of Flew's responses were humorous but not really to any point that I could discern. After all, in his own words Christianity is the only game in town and there are no other religions claiming revelations from God. :|

All you Christians out there, I suggest this be required watching for you.

I'm reminded of a well known Peanuts cartoon where Charlie Brown, Linus, and Lucy(?) are laying on the pitchers mound looking up at the sky and seeing various shapes in the clouds. Linus and Lucy see complex figures of important religious events - Paul holding Stephen's coat while Stephen was being stoned, etc. Charlie Brown apologizes, and says that before all that, he was going to say he saw a horsie and a duckie. Flew likewise, seems way out of place.
 
hgc said:
To say simply, "deism is a belief in God," leaves out important information, such as the distinction between deism and theism. In other words, what definition or concept of "God" are you solving for?
Click to expand...

Does it matter? Is one of the definitions or concepts non-fictitious?
 
tsig said:
I had exactly the same experience except for the parts that were different.

I joined a group only to find that the rest resigned.
Click to expand...

You sound just like one of my imaginary friends.

Want to team up and take over the world?






(me neither)


cool
 
Fiona said:
I was an atheist long before I ever heard of Dawkins or any of the rest of the ones who make such a splash. Fact is that there are a lot of reasons for people to be or become atheists, and they are no more homogenous than theists.
Click to expand...

IMO: I would think that for a majority of people "born into atheism" (by this I mean simply not raised with any theistic beliefs) who have never been thoroughly interested in religious debate (or biology) and not surrounded by religious fundamentalists (which is fairly common in my country of origin) it is very likely they would never have heard of Richard Dawkins.
 
I didnt become an atheist by reading Dawkins et al. I started reading Dawkins for his biology and explanations of evolution. If anything made me a full blown atheist it was coming to forums like these where I could see arguments that hadn't even occurred to me. Plus, I was able to see, via these places, just what the religious really thought. After I stopped laughing I realised they took their delusions very seriously.
 
Limbo said:
I agree but I would make a couple of changes to suit my preferences.

"To me the concept images of God is simply our way of manifesting and dealing with elements of ourselves archetypes of the collective unconscious that we don't understand, our spiritual feelings, unknowns, existential awareness etc."
Click to expand...

I think you're full of it, so I'd make a few changes to make your post more honest:

"I agree with what I think you should mean, and will make a couple of changes to turn your statement into pure drivel."
 
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!!!!!
 
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...

Ah, nice of you to pop in, though in doing so you do bring to mind Proverbs 26:11.


So, you're trying to discredit the whole of the theory of evolution because of one possible reading of the original title? How about tackling the actual content?

ETA: You might also consider learning to use some of the forum tools, such as the Quote button. I think you are responding to this post.
 
Last edited:
Guess I'll have to jot a quick note to the presiding bishop of the Episcopal church and let her know everything she learned in her biology degree and career prior to being bishop was flawed and evil.

I'm sure she'll thank me...

Oh, and Dawkins uses a lot of the arugments for atheism that have been around a very, very long time. This is not to fault him for it, just a statement of fact. Most of the things to be said in the "argument" of theist vs. atheist (or vice versa) have been said or written ad infinitum.

It would be difficult for anyone to say anything new on either side..other than, perhaps, something with regard to respectfully agreeing to disagree. But, even that, I'm sure, has been done often enough not to be considered "new". Rare, maybe. But not new.

So, if someone sounds like Dawkins (or sounds like Falwell) it can't necessarily be attributed to directly reading/listening to either. It's just that the objections are old and the ire is old, etc...
 
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...

picard-facepalm2.jpg
 
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...


He's alive!!!!

Were people ever flayed for the crime of being "incredibly erroneous"? I must have been sick that day in history class.

I say again, Charles Darwin had NOTHING to do with what is called "Social Darwinism". Evolution is about organisms adapting to their environment via mutations. If the mutation is beneficial (i.e., the organism lives long enough to procreate), the adaptation survives. After enough time and enough mutations, something as simple as a light-sensitive patch of skin can evolve into something as sophisticated as an eye. Evolution has nothing to do with ideas about one human racial group being inherently superior or inferior in relation to other racial groups. In fact Evolutionary Biologists will be the first to say that there are no such things as distinct human "races". Stop parading your ignorance and actually crack a book on the subject for once. You may find to your bemused delight that there was never any need to get into such a lather over the subject.

I noticed you didn't comment on Flew's quote defending Darwin against claims of racism. Funny, that.

Don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting for your reply. Everyone here knows how you operate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom