Darwin, Another flatulent atheist god bites the dust!

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, May 16, 2020.

  1. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In that case it won't be religious fundamentalists.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2020
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seems thats not the case, Im still passing out crying towels for those who need them.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2020
  3. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
  4. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Darwin was debunked a long time ago, at a conference on mathematical statistics. Some are just now getting the memo. They then had to go and invent a lot of other rubbish, like 'epi-genetics', 'cross genetic transfer', and other junk 'science' as substitutes. Some still peddle the 'punctuated equilibrium' fantasy, which is hilarious: "Evolution by jerks!"
     
  5. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As opposed to the diversity of life being explained by magic from a invisible being!
     
    Market Junkie, Cosmo and Pisa like this.
  6. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing got debunked except in your imagination!

    Ps love the selfie, is that you when you found out uncle Adolf blew his brains out?
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2020
    Cosmo and Market Junkie like this.
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    your incredulity isnt surprising, go down have a drink, hell drink a whole bottle, crow tastes much better with a drink to wash it down.
     
  8. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here, Koko. Got some viewing for you:

    https://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa/videos
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  9. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Market Junkie, Cosmo and Durandal like this.
  10. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you miss the point entirely. Darwinism underpins something that leftists need to be true in order for their Eugenic preferences to become an acceptable goal in their policy directions. It must be true if one believes in any kind of master race where the elite are the masters that can then control the deplorable cannon fodder beneath them. If not for evolution, none of those are possible absent divine right, which flies in the face of their belief system that obviates their supremacy.
     
    Farnsworth likes this.
  11. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So funny, not one for political history are you?

    Spencer applied the idea of “survival of the fittest” to so-called laissez faire or unrestrained capitalism during the Industrial Revolution, in which businesses are allowed to operate with little regulation from the government.

    Another prominent Social Darwinist was American economist William Graham Sumner. He was an early opponent of the welfare state. He viewed individual competition for property and social status as a tool for eliminating the weak and immoral of the population.

    Galton proposed to better humankind by propagating the British elite. He argued that social institutions such as welfare and mental asylums allowed inferior humans to survive and reproduce at higher levels than their superior counterparts in Britain’s wealthy class.

    Galton’s ideas never really took hold in his country, but they became popular in America where the concepts of eugenics quickly gained strength.

    Hitler adopted the social Darwinist take on survival of the fittest. He believed the German master race had grown weak due to the influence of non-Aryans in Germany. To Hitler, survival of the German “Aryan” race depended on its ability to maintain the purity of its gene pool.

    The Nazis targeted certain groups or races that they considered biologically inferior for extermination. These included Jews, Roma (gypsies), Poles, Soviets, people with disabilities and homosexuals.
    https://www.history.com/topics/earl... believe in “survival,past century and a half.

    All good leftists!
     
    Market Junkie and Cosmo like this.
  12. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Excellent points.The 'rational constructionists' have had to rely on mass murder as a 'solution' to their governance problems, since they endorse sociopathy as a form of 'advanced scientific management of human behaviors', so they have the many Soviet purges, the Maoist massacres and genocides, and the aggressive police state as their only social organizational choices. No wonder smarter atheists like Hayek prefer Christian traditionalism over 'rationalism' when it comes to government and social orders.

    For those new to Dawkins cultism, here is a good critique of one of his more popular and contradictory unhinged rants.



    However, it would be an instance of kid glove donning not to note that Dawkins simply doesn't recognize when he is out of his philosophical depth. Antony Latham is correct when he laments that "Dawkins clearly has an inflated idea of his competence in metaphysics." 11 And as Oxford theologian Alister McGrath comments:

    Dawkins' engagement with theology is superficial and inaccurate, often amounting to little more than cheap point scoring... His tendency to misrepresent the views of his opponents is the least attractive aspect of his writings. It simply reinforces the perception that he inhabits a hermetically sealed conceptual world, impervious to a genuine engagement with religion. 12

    Terry Eagleton passes similar comment in the London Review of Books:

    Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don't believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster...critics of the richest, most enduring form of popular culture in human history have a moral obligation to confront that case at its most persuasive, rather than grabbing themselves a victory on the cheap by savaging it as so much garbage and gobbledygook. 13

    The God Delusion is liberally sprinkled with imaginary opponents ("Here is the message that an imaginary "intelligent design theorist" might broadcast..." 14 , "the following statement from an imaginary apologist..." 15 , "My imaginary religious apologist..." 16 , "Let's invent an imaginary quotation from a moral philosopher..." 17 ), as if Dawkins can't be bothered to engaging with the real opposition.


    And, we have this Fun Fact ...

    Aside from an unfortunate determination to tackle straw men, the most noteworthy and controversial aspect of Dawkins' apologetic is his support for the theoretical underpinnings of Intelligent Design Theory. Most significantly, Dawkins makes it clear the intelligent design is a scientific theory.

    http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=53&mode=detail

    So, obviously his many cultists haven't even read the books of his they cite, they rely on excerpts from web pages, which presents a misleading view of his cognitive dissonance; Dawkins accepts Intelligent deign theory as valid. No wonder his cult never mentions this.
     
  13. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Evolution does not support such notions.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  14. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's nothing intelligent about Intelligent Design.
     
    Market Junkie and Durandal like this.
  15. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your link is the Evangelical Philosophical Society?
    :roflol:
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2020
    Market Junkie likes this.
  16. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yup. Hilter was a good leftist. Socialist, authoritarian, Eugenics adopter. Mao used it during the cultural revolution. So folks like Galton, were the liberal elite in England at the time. I know, you don't actually know this, but some of us do. Frankly, it is kind of refreshing seeing just how ignorant folks who tribe in the left actually are about their own peeps. And remember, Woodrow? The guy who created segregation in this country? Not a conservative by any stretch. Also a HUGE fan of Eugenics. Wonder why. And isn't that why liberals put planned parenthood shops close to black neighborhoods?? So they are convenient?
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  17. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really? Why not? Show some work, not just a flat assertion.
     
  18. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh dear you really have not got a clue about politics have you?
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  19. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How about you show your work first?
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  20. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, you would have trouble refuting them; you don't really know any science, just what is fashionable and what isn't.

    Why do you have a problem with Dawkin's belief in intelligent design? Is it because of your inability to refute any of it with evidence that makes you such an angry and irrational reactionary when it comes up?
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2020
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  21. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well, we're still waiting on all that 'evidence' the evolution cultists keeps claiming is out there; they never seem to get around to that for some reason. Well, they never get to it for a very good reason, actually; it doesn't exist.
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  22. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    There's nothing intelligent about evolution, either, yet you keep trying to sell it.
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  23. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no trouble refuting them.
    Debunking IDiots is like shooting fish in a barrel.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2020
    Market Junkie likes this.
  24. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unlike you, I don't conduct business with snake oil salesmen.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2020
  25. Market Junkie

    Market Junkie Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    1,920
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I'm still laughing over that case 15 years ago where a bunch of jesus freaks in PA wanted their school district to teach their childish "intelligent design" fantasy in science classes, no less.

    :roflol:

    I think the judge laughed (hard) and threw the jesus freaks out of his courtroom on their faces... :thumbsup:
     
    Cosmo likes this.

Share This Page