by Perry 365 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Burn,
I am who I am, and it is better to lose with passion and the identity of the self than to "win" and lose one's soul. I am "better", because I take the harder path, because it is the right one.
This sort of intellectual capitulation is fine if that is the path you wish to walk, it is your perogative, though be aware that often our own stupidity makes our path all the harder.
Good luck.
HS
Gilileo said
You, sir, are a douche.
And I truly am LOL.
I'm imagining Galileo as a southern usa gentleman saying this.
Brilliant! Couldn't have put it better.
Burn The Ships said:
I am who I am, and it is better to lose with passion and the identity of the self than to "win" and lose one's soul. I am "better", because I take the harder path, because it is the right one.
These are the words of a Gladiator! I may adopt this as my motto.
Or course the dictionary defines a Gladiator as - ‘A person engaged in a controversy or debate, especially in public; a disputant.’
Burn The Ships and Hillary both qualify but I must with regret point out that Perry as a Christian combatant can never attain the status of Gladiator.
It is just as well because if the rules were bent to allow him in, he would be turned into cat food quicker than a lion could roar.
I see that an outstanding array of critical minds have chimed in while I was at church this morning. Praise God!
Ok BTTT. If we take the sanitized and redacted "explanations" of Mr. Dawkins that he made after he was schooled in his interview with Mr. Stein at face value, one is forced to conclude that the Dawkins is afraid to answer a straight question. The question that Ben Stein put to the man (3 times I believe) was whether or not I. D. should be discussed.
If the Dawkins' cleaned up version of his answer is true; why did he not simply say that he did not believe that I. D. should be discussed? Ummm? Why try and hide the fact that he is for suppression of certain kinds of thinking? I mean at least the Nazis and Communists were up front about what they were doing. They claimed to know what people should and should not be thinking and were proud of it. Why isn't the Dawkins proud of his beliefs concerning what he believes is approved thinking and what is unapproved thinking?
I mean I'm proud of my beliefs, my conclusions; shouldn't a prominent atheist scientist be as well?
Darwinism and its connection to genocide was touched on in the movie. While Darwinism is not a sufficient cause to explain the murder of millions of certain kinds of innocent civillians, it is a necessary one.
While Darwinism is not a sufficient cause to explain the murder of millions of certain kinds of innocent civillians, it is a necessary one.
It's not any more necessary than the Judeo-Christian background of Hitler's ideas.
Sure it is hamilcarr. Hitler, Stalin and the eugenisists weren't insane; there was a certain logic to their evil. That logic was that certain unapproved people were simply "eaters" and a drain on society. They believed that modern man was interfering with natural selection. They sought to correct what they saw as unnatural.
so Hitler learned his behavior from his Judeo-Christian background? To kill Jews?
Reposted from:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/the_simple_falsehood_at_the_he.php
I have to make this really, really simple for the "Hitler was an evolutionist" dimwits.
There is a central, incredibly obvious fact in Darwin's insight.
If members of a population die or are killed off, they will leave no descendants for subsequent generations.
It isn't razzle-dazzle genius. Any idiot can figure that one out — and many idiots have. Farmers have known it for millennia, when they set aside particularly fruitful seed stock or especially robust farm animals for breeding, and eat the rest. Nazis used this elementary logic when they decided to exterminate Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. Eugenicists used it when they wanted to argue for shifting the distribution of certain properties in a population.
It ain't "Darwinism". It's self-evident, obvious, selbstverständlich, apparent, évidente, transparent. The KKK knows it, farmers know it, dog and horse breeders know it, the Nazis knew it, they didn't need Darwin to spell it out for them. Blaming that on Darwin is awesomely stupid.
Darwin's real contribution, the one that had everyone smacking themselves in the forehead and wondering why they didn't think of it first, was the realization that the natural environment does the killing — that natural selection shapes heredity. The idea of culling populations is not only so easy that a hate-mongering cretin can think of it, but that weather, bacteria, viruses, parasites, predators, etc. have been doing it for eons, with no intelligence required, and that mindless microorganisms have been far greater agents of hereditary change than the worst the Nazis ever accomplished; does Charles Darwin also get the blame for that? Darwin realized that the environment has consequences and can shape the generation-by-generation passage of hereditary traits in populations, and that examination of the natural world reveals that it has been doing exactly that. He realized that ubiquitous forces that are so simple we take them for granted have been quietly and slowly sculpting our heredity since the beginning of life on earth.
When clueless creationists argue that Darwin led to Hitler, or worse, throw away buckets of money making elaborate propaganda films arguing such nonsense, it's worse than inane. It's as if they have completely missed the point of the idea they are damning.
I have to make this really, really simple for the "Hitler was an evolutionist" dimwits.....The idea of culling populations is not only so easy that a hate-mongering cretin can think of it, but that weather , bacteria, viruses, parasites, predators, etc. have been doing it for eons, with no intelligence required, and that mindless microorganisms have been far greater agents of hereditary change than the worst the Nazis ever accomplished
Seratonin, When you put it like that, Hitler seems like a cuddly sheep. Seriously, you've done nothing to falsify the proposition in the movie that darwinism insn't a sufficient mechanism to explain the genocide of millions of innocent civilians, but a necessary one. Darwinism permeated Hitler's thinking. Look at these Hitler quotes:
" I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortification of a false vision called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and independence which only a very few can bear." - Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, p. 222
"The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a Jewish invention, it is a blemish like circumcision. - Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, p. 220
"The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." - Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk, p. 51
"The earth continues to go round, whether it's the man who kills the tiger or the tiger who eats the man. The stronger asserts his will, it's the law of nature. The world doesn't change; its laws are eternal." - Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk, p. 38-39
Regardless, this is a periphreal issue. Would you care to comment on the apparent duplicity of Dawkins, which is the subject of this thread?
