by badwillie 101 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Yes, you made an insinuation that Christians living Post Darwin, ".. was the only game in town." You used "For Them," not "For some" or, even "Many," but, "for them"
So, I stand by my claim. Why just admit your insinuation did not play out? If this was not your intent, then please enlighten us. However, I will continue to rely on your post history of "one-sided" view of religion...
Do you know the difference between the word "insinuation" and "Claim"?
""What would you do with "cut and paste" Thi Chi? Oh, and take a look at my advice to Double Edge. Apply.
B.""
Again, this "Poison Well" tactic is weak and telling. Instead to sticking to and addressing the issues and information at hand, you attack other non-relevant issues of the topic, not the information itself..
But, what would you expect when you run out of facts, information to support your false claims and insinuations? Is this all you can come up with? lol
Thi Chi,
Yes, you made an insinuation that Christians living Post Darwin, ".. was the only game in town." You used "For Them," not "For some" or, even "Many," but, "for them"
Most of the "Great Scientists" who were Christians were living in a pre-Darwinian, usually even pre-Enlightenment, world. For them, Christianity was simply the only game in town.
You swiped "pre-Darwin" with "post-Darwin." That makes all the difference in the world. Generally speaking, most scientists before Darwin's theory of natural selection were theists, after Darwin the number of scientists who were/are theists has diminished considerably. Most advanced level scientists are not theists.
B.
""You swiped "pre-Darwin" with "post-Darwin." ""
LOL, Same difference!!
And please, show us the numbers. Do greater numbers, one way or another make it right?
The facts show it is not all locked up......
Thi Chi,
""You swiped "pre-Darwin" with "post-Darwin." ""No, "pre" means "before" and "post" means "after" you knucklehead.LOL, Same difference!!
And please, show us the numbers. Do greater numbers, one way or another make it right?From a strictly logical perspective it does not follow. I never said it did. But, when one considers that the vast majority of mankind is uninformed when it comes to the findings of modern science, as well as ignorant of religious criticism, I think the opinions of people who have studied such things does matter. Goodbye. I've got better things to do than argue with someone who sees no difference between the prefixes "pre" and "post." Bradley
Logan,
No you didn't say that there are no contemporary scientists who are Christians but your original comment was certainly biased in that direction. "Finding Darwin's God" is not only an expose on ID but also an expose on atheists who dishonestly use Darwin as a support for atheism. In your comment about the book why did you fail to mention that? Is it more bias or did you only read part of the book? If you did read it all you would know that Miller is a devout Roman Catholic. Sounds pretty "traditional" to me.
edge,
I would hardly call Miller's book an "expose" on atheism. Plus, being Catholic can mean a lot of different things, ranging from fanatical right-wing Catholics like adherants of Opus Dei, to a very liberal Catholic who broadly believes in God but does not accept (and often opposes) other teachings of the Bible and the Church. Where Ken Miller fits into the picture I'm not sure. He certainly is the exception to the rule among prominant scientists (especially biologists).
B.
addendum: Re: Catholics -- many are more attracted to the rituals of the Church and the aesthetic appeal thereof than they are in a clearly defined theology or Christian moral code.
This is an interesting thread, though I haven't read every word of every post.
When I "became" an atheist (misleading word, it was rather when I quit being a believer in a god), I didn't read about atheism per se, nor who was or wasn't. I read about evolution and other things that had bothered me for years.
It's interesting but not important who subscribes to what belief or non-belief, when deciding. Actually, it wasn't a decision, it was merely a crumbling away of a house of cards, in my case, that supported belief in a deity. When the cards collapsed, there was nothing left. I guess you could say I could no longer convince myself there was a god.
Atheism isn't a belief. It's the absence of belief. It isn't so much a positive assertion as it is simply saying there isn't an assertion of a god.
Anyway, that's just a bit of rambling on the subject from a personal perspective.
Pat
Logan,
Why did you not address my point about your bias? The way you answer (or don't answer) you would do well in politics. If you actually read the book and failed to see it was critical of both creationist and atheist camps, which was the whole point of the book, then it is useless to have a discussion with you.
From the back cover:
"[Dr. Miller] takes issue with those scientists who claim that modern science has disproved God."
"Finding Darwin's God is an artfully constructed argument against both those who deny evolution and those using science to justify a materialist worldview."
Those comments about the book were made by the president of the National Academy of Science and a Biology Prof at U of California. I guess in your world they just have poor reading comprehension.
