by hooberus 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The OP is trapped in one dimensional thinking. If he opened his mind a bit and at least conceded the possibility that he might be wrong and some here could be right, he would learn more.
BTS
Monty,
Now if we can get you to open your mind and concede that the political policies of the centre and the left wing might have something to offer, you might learn more too.
Now if we can get you to open your mind and concede that the political policies of the centre and the left wing might have something to offer, you might learn more too. I study the leftist political philosophy also. I see where they are persuasive. It all depends on what premises you start with. On my shelf there is Marx among other things. But my bedrock ideal is that a respect of the natural rights of human beings should be the foundation of any political philosophy and secular system of government. It is also that human beings are intrinsically flawed to a degree and that any system of political power that endeavors to resolve that and create utopia is self defeating: it creates an apparatus that magnifies power and thus increases the damage that humans can do to each other. God Himself could come tell me otherwise, and I would debate Him. BTS |
hooberus: "If you are going to claim that anyone has been dishonestly mis-represented then perhaps you should document it."
"No, YOU should, as the one making the assertion and providing the quotation. If you take a quotation, context unknown, from an author, also unknown, then YOU need to supply the documentation.
Your author could have been a Victorian armchair scientist, for all I know. BTW, the WTS adores Victorian armchair scientists -- they're completely out of date (and therefore generally unknown), had never done any actual science (also convenient), sound authoritative, and dubs are too braindead to check it out.
Sorry, that kind of thing doesn't fly here."
I have backed up my specific assertions on evolutionary teachings with documentation from a recent science article in the Guardian , with the quote coming from an evolutionary scientsist. I even provided a link to the entire interview: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/04/fossils.uknews
I also quoted from prominent evolutionists Charles Darwin and George Gaylord Simpson [if you don't know who he is try doing a little research]. A reference was provided in Darwins case and the quote from Simpson was relatively lengtly and plain.
To clarify my point earlier. Many people were atheists before Darwin, so Atheism is not subject to evolution.
From the centre to Marx is a long way, almost as far as it is the other way to the extremists on the right wing.
Booberus does like to equate the two, no matter how often it is pointed out to him that the two are are not the same thing.
You would think that someone who takes his bible as seriously as Booberus does would realise that the bible does mention atheism despite being written long before Darwin's lifetime.
Atheism is not the same as evolutionary theory. Your OP is flawed.
You can be an atheist w/o subscribing to evolution.
You can believe in evolution and still be a theist.
False dichotomy. No need to dignify the OP with an answer.
Where does the OP (original post) claim these things?
How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?
Err Booberus,
Just thought you might like a reminder of your title complete with your emphasis! Since you seem to be having a little problem with your comprehension of the point being made.
OK, maybe its the thread title that is flawed. My bad. Thanks Caedes.
AAG,
No, I think you hit the nail on the head, the OP continues the theme of the title with Booberus consistantly confusing Darwinian evolutionary theory with atheism.
