Intelligent Design is not Science
Moderators: Moderator5, Moderator3, FECC-Moderator, Site Mechanic
-
Graceland Gardener
strange how the Leftwing have such a fierce intolerance for...
Christianity (with its specific views about Creation )
but...
are tolerant and understanding of Islam (with its specific views about Destruction )
and how odd that public expression of Christianity is okay if
applied to empower minority causes (ie 1960s Civil Rights)
but won't accept Christian expresson from anyone else.
Christianity (with its specific views about Creation )
but...
are tolerant and understanding of Islam (with its specific views about Destruction )
and how odd that public expression of Christianity is okay if
applied to empower minority causes (ie 1960s Civil Rights)
but won't accept Christian expresson from anyone else.
-
Steve_M
Islam has specific views about destruction ?
Really ? I thought that was a minority of Islamic fundamentalists.
None of the Islamic followers I know seem to follow any thoughts on destruction at all. If anything it would appear that they are sustainers of creation.
But, I must point out that I have not engaged in specifics of their religion on a one to one basis as i don't follow any single faith but merely observe, so I could and most likely am wrong, but I'm just asking the question.
Really ? I thought that was a minority of Islamic fundamentalists.
None of the Islamic followers I know seem to follow any thoughts on destruction at all. If anything it would appear that they are sustainers of creation.
But, I must point out that I have not engaged in specifics of their religion on a one to one basis as i don't follow any single faith but merely observe, so I could and most likely am wrong, but I'm just asking the question.
-
Torben
GG
I can assure you that everything I dislike about Christianity I also dislike about Islam. Because it's pretty much the same. And that's also what I point out when people say Christianity is good and Islam is bad or vice versa: it's pretty much the same.
And please continue praying in public, "acknowledge a creator" and keep your bible as I keep mine.
I can assure you that everything I dislike about Christianity I also dislike about Islam. Because it's pretty much the same. And that's also what I point out when people say Christianity is good and Islam is bad or vice versa: it's pretty much the same.
And please continue praying in public, "acknowledge a creator" and keep your bible as I keep mine.
-
MauriceinIreland
-
Pete Dube
- Posts: 7712
- Registered for: 21 years
- Location: South Carolina
- Has thanked: 82 times
- Been thanked: 530 times
Herein lies the problem Torben. You make a blanket statement that "evolution is a fact." But the word 'evolution' has different meanings. It's traditional Darwinian meaning is that natural selection working on the advantage conferred on a species by random mutations ensures the species survival, and over the course of time leads to new species. And at the level of microevolution there is empirical support (although the importance of mutation has been called into question). So as far as that goes it is a fact. And I've already acknowledged it as such in my previous post.Torben wrote: Evolution is a fact and has to be taught in school.
But the word evolution also includes the concept of macro-evolution, fish transforming into amphibians, amphibians transforming into reptiles, reptiles transforming into mammals, which remains highly speculative, with little - if any - actual empirical evidence to support it. What little evidence there is is subject to interpretation that is contentious - even within Darwinist circles.
But the most controversial meaning of the word evolution is that of the neo-Darwinist paradigm: that inorganic matter somehow became primitive organisms, which in turn became gradually more complex organisms eventually giving rise to the invertebrates and on to the macro-evolutionary sequence. Darwin himself proposed a theory only for the developmental relationship of the myriad animal (and plant) species. He did not extend his theory to the origin of life, and in Origin of Species actually mentions a Creator for a starting point. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to support the neo-Darwinist theory that life arose from inorganic chemicals. To date, scientists working on origin of life scenarios in the lab remain completely stumped. So daunting is the problem that emminent scientists such as Sir Fred Hoyle and Sir Francis Crick have postulated that Earth must have been 'seeded' for life from an extra-terrestrial origin (which, incidentally, I.D. proponents acknowledge as one possibility for the designer).
Yes, and the majority I.D. proponents would agree with that Torben. The problem is that it hasn't been the case. The all-purpose moniker of evolution is taught as fact, with little - if any- discussion of the cons, flaws, weaknesses of the theoretical aspects. It is assumed to be true in it's totality a priory. That's not education, that's indoctrination.Torben wrote: The theories on how evolution happens should be taught with their pros and cons. That's an honest attempt at teaching evolution.
And what if the I.D. proponents are correct Torben? What if there is in fact evidence that life is the result of some sort of intelligent agent, and that certain systems within organisms could not have come about by Darwinist gradualism? Is it not scientific to follow the evidence where it leads? Or does the commitment to philosophical naturalism take precedence over the evidence at all costs?Torben wrote: You may teach ID within your religious community, but not in school.
Sounds harsh, because it is.
Yes your comment is harsh for a number of reasons: 1.) Because you set the parameters for what is scientifically acceptable so that ONLY that which agrees with philosophical naturalism can be considered. That which doesn't get's dismissed - regardless of merit. This is a rather arbitrary way to do science. Certainly it is proper for science to try to explain the natural world by naturalistic means. But if the naturalistic explanations are not adequate, or if the evidence is pointing to something other than a naturalistic explanation then scientists should be able to pursue this line of inquiry without it being dismissed because it doesn't fit the naturalistic paradigm. 2.) You mention I.D. as ok to teach in a 'religious community,' but not in school. But as I've already written the I.D. proponents are not seeking to have I.D. taught in schools, and make no specific claims as to the identity of the intelligent designer. But your 'religious community' comment does reveal not only a commitment to philosophical naturalism, but also a bias of philosophical atheism, which leads to my next point 3.) While it is appropriate for science to try and seek naturalistic explanations for the natural world, it is inappropriate to perform scientific investigation led by a philosophical bias towards either theism or atheism. Science should be neutral in this regard. In this country the high preisthood of neo-Darwinism are by & large philosophical atheists who have enlisted the A.C.L.U. and the Federal courts to ensure that their paradigm is protected from criticism, thereby ensuring that the indoctrination of children into naturalistic philosophy in public schools will continue. Any teacher, school board, or parent who dares to question the dogma of Darwin is threatened with a lawsuit. So much for intellectual inquiry. It's rather reminiscent of the medieval church, without the burning at the stake. Ironic isn't it? Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
-
tupelo_boy
- Posts: 2044
- Registered for: 21 years
- Location: Manchester UK
- Has thanked: 621 times
- Been thanked: 67 times
- Age: 63
Some people, Maurice, are better informed than others. That works both ways across the Atlantic. I'm sure you didn't mean it quite the way it looks in black and white? Maurice that sounds astonishingly arrogant and final for one who purports to enjoy the cut and thrust of debate.MauriceinIreland wrote:GG, Left wing? I fly with both wings:-)
If only life was so simple as being Left and Right.
You really need to know we on this side of the Atlantic are probably the most informed people that ever walked this planet. The amount of debate here from all viewpoints is extraordinary.
Best wishes
Geoff
tupelo boy
If I could you know that I would fly away with you.
Head of The Harum Scarum Soundtrack Appreciation Society - Camp Classic Division
If I could you know that I would fly away with you.
Head of The Harum Scarum Soundtrack Appreciation Society - Camp Classic Division
-
Torben
Pete
I know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. When biologists speak of evolution they're either talking about both as a whole or just macroevolution on its own.
What you've mixed in there is origin of life, which is not part of evolution. And I agree, that so far we've only reached hypotheses of how life may have originated, but no evidence.
Likewise the early evolution of life is still pretty much in the dark. But there's already enough evidence for me to believe that all living things still extant today share are common ancestor from which they evolved. And even if it were more than one ancestor from which all living things evolved that would not harm the idea of evolution as a whole.
I'll now come to the point which constitutes the core of our disagreement: that macroevolution "remains highly speculative, with little - if any - actual empirical evidence to support it." There's a lot of morphological evidence including the fossil record and lately a tremendous amount of molecular genetic evidence, I say. Contentious within Darwinist circles? No!
You're expecting to find morphological evidence (or, rather, you don't) between vertebrate groups, which were grouped that way in the first place, because there were few extant intermediates between them. This means that almost all intermediates have to be found in the fossil record, which is by its very nature not that rich. In addition you dismiss macroevolution within these groups as "microevolution" (as I experienced on another discussion on this topic), when it is clearly not.
While admittedly the fossil record has more gaps than it has links, and this is not surprising, there are many instances where the fossil record is rich between quite different groups of species. So rich, that biologists are hard pressed where to draw the line between those groups when taking into account the fossil record, while there's a clear cut when just focusing on extant species. But you dismiss all this evidence as non-existing.
I understand the anger you voice in your last paragraph. I'm being harsh, because you're dismissing all the evidence for macroevolution. Naturalistic explanations for evolution are adequate and there is no evidence pointing somewhere else. Macroevolution is a fact, saying it does not exist is wrong and, yes, sadly the teaching of evolution has to be protected from false "criticism".
I don't think my "religious community" comment reveals what you say. It's just that I think every person has the right to believe what they want, as long as they don't force others to be taught what is actually wrong. If you're in a group of like-minded people you may engage in anything you want, that's why it's o.k. for me if they teach ID in these groups.
While there certainly is a link between me being an evolutionist and me being an atheist, there's also a big separating line. Evolution is fact and there's nothing philosophical about it. The question of a higher being is philosophical. There is no evidence pro or con. It is the lack of evidence that makes me believe in the non-existence of a higher being, though.
I know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. When biologists speak of evolution they're either talking about both as a whole or just macroevolution on its own.
What you've mixed in there is origin of life, which is not part of evolution. And I agree, that so far we've only reached hypotheses of how life may have originated, but no evidence.
Likewise the early evolution of life is still pretty much in the dark. But there's already enough evidence for me to believe that all living things still extant today share are common ancestor from which they evolved. And even if it were more than one ancestor from which all living things evolved that would not harm the idea of evolution as a whole.
I'll now come to the point which constitutes the core of our disagreement: that macroevolution "remains highly speculative, with little - if any - actual empirical evidence to support it." There's a lot of morphological evidence including the fossil record and lately a tremendous amount of molecular genetic evidence, I say. Contentious within Darwinist circles? No!
You're expecting to find morphological evidence (or, rather, you don't) between vertebrate groups, which were grouped that way in the first place, because there were few extant intermediates between them. This means that almost all intermediates have to be found in the fossil record, which is by its very nature not that rich. In addition you dismiss macroevolution within these groups as "microevolution" (as I experienced on another discussion on this topic), when it is clearly not.
While admittedly the fossil record has more gaps than it has links, and this is not surprising, there are many instances where the fossil record is rich between quite different groups of species. So rich, that biologists are hard pressed where to draw the line between those groups when taking into account the fossil record, while there's a clear cut when just focusing on extant species. But you dismiss all this evidence as non-existing.
I understand the anger you voice in your last paragraph. I'm being harsh, because you're dismissing all the evidence for macroevolution. Naturalistic explanations for evolution are adequate and there is no evidence pointing somewhere else. Macroevolution is a fact, saying it does not exist is wrong and, yes, sadly the teaching of evolution has to be protected from false "criticism".
I don't think my "religious community" comment reveals what you say. It's just that I think every person has the right to believe what they want, as long as they don't force others to be taught what is actually wrong. If you're in a group of like-minded people you may engage in anything you want, that's why it's o.k. for me if they teach ID in these groups.
While there certainly is a link between me being an evolutionist and me being an atheist, there's also a big separating line. Evolution is fact and there's nothing philosophical about it. The question of a higher being is philosophical. There is no evidence pro or con. It is the lack of evidence that makes me believe in the non-existence of a higher being, though.
-
ColinB
- Posts: 29384
- Registered for: 21 years
- Location: Gravesend, UK
- Has thanked: 73 times
- Been thanked: 101 times
- Contact:
Not sure what your point is here.Eileen wrote:You might mind once much of your science curriculum disappears.ColinB wrote:I don't mind which theory schoolkids are told.
As long as the lessons are couched in the terms:
"Some believe that creation was an accident, that we have simply evolved from simple life-forms etc. etc."
And:
"Some people believe in 'intelligent design' and that we have a creator who designed us etc. etc."
The kids can make up their own minds what to believe.
And they're no fools.
Perhaps we could try it out in mathematics first.
"Some people believe that 9 x 7 = 738."
And:
"Some people believe that 9 x 7 = 63."
The kids can make up their own minds what to believe.
And they're no fools.
Eileen
Maths is a pretty precise subject.
9 x 7 has only one [correct] answer.
The origin of life, on the other hand, is a rather vague subject and is open to all sorts of theories and beliefs.
And many of them have something going for them !
Especially as science can't answer all the questions.
Colin B
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
-
MauriceinIreland
tupelo_boy, I'm sure you know what I meant.
Having to qualify every statement can be a pain in the neck:-) But I usually am very accommodating and take everything into consideration.
Yes, I've read, and met, a great many intelligent and well informed Americans. A lot of them informed me of the insular nature of American education.
Having to qualify every statement can be a pain in the neck:-) But I usually am very accommodating and take everything into consideration.
Yes, I've read, and met, a great many intelligent and well informed Americans. A lot of them informed me of the insular nature of American education.
-
Eileen
- Posts: 411
- Registered for: 20 years 8 months
IMO this isn't about a vague subject entitled "the origin of life". It's about science class and about biological evolution, which is "seamlessly joined with geological evolution, and is completely consistent with the principles of physics and chemistry".ColinB wrote:Not sure what your point is here.
Maths is a pretty precise subject.
9 x 7 has only one [correct] answer.
The origin of life, on the other hand, is a rather vague subject and is open to all sorts of theories and beliefs.
And many of them have something going for them !
Especially as science can't answer all the questions.
As my own shallow example - you can't teach as scientific theory that "some believe the earth is only 6000 years old because....." and then reasonably turn around and teach as science, and as fact, the discovery of a particular 25,000 year old fossil on that same earth. You can't then teach the chemistries used to date the fossil (because obviously we just implied that how we interpret the chemical reactions might not be valid), or the anthropological and archaeological knowledge of that region, nor the geological evolution of the very dirt where the fossil was found (because obviously all our understandings here might just be wrong), or that this fossil could even have existed on earth (because we just said maybe the earth didn't exist back then or maybe it did).
What I'm trying to say is probably better summarized in this quote (from the IMO interesting report, "Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States"):
Biological evolution is just one of the most important of many broad issues on which substantially all working scientists agree. There may be a few persons with scientific credentials who disagree, but they do not contribute to the progress that is the hallmark of science. Analogously, on a smaller and perhaps more digestible scale, there are a few scientists who do not believe that the human immunodeficiency virus is the cause of AIDS, but they have contributed nothing to the development of the antiviral drugs that have so greatly improved the prognosis for patients over the past decade or so. It is not simply that these dissenters are wrong, because wrong answers can sometimes stimulate controversy that helps lead to correct answers. Rather, as the physicist Wolfgang Pauli liked to say, they are not even wrong. That is, their arguments are useless and even detrimental to the pursuit of further knowledge.
Eileen
This post is for readers of the FECC forum. Permission to copy this post elsewhere is not granted.
-
Eileen
- Posts: 411
- Registered for: 20 years 8 months
Pete, I've been reading your posts also. And I'm likely one of those mucking up the discussion as you mentioned, however more of what I find about the ID issue as it affects practical matters in the US at present such as school standards supports that than not.Pete Dube wrote:And what if the I.D. proponents are correct Torben? What if there is in fact evidence that life is the result of some sort of intelligent agent, and that certain systems within organisms could not have come about by Darwinist gradualism? Is it not scientific to follow the evidence where it leads? Or does the commitment to philosophical naturalism take precedence over the evidence at all costs?
I'm really not concerned with the religious beliefs of researchers or any labels they give themselves (theist, non, whatever). Absolutely they can follow the evidence where it leads. When a proponent of any theory can prove (or disprove) something scientifically then theories will need to be adjusted accordingly and I don't care what it's called. Whatever contributions to humanity any ID proponents make will be gratefully accepted. Please find cures for more diseases, figure out how to more efficiently clean polluted water, or just figure out something that will help someone else figure out how to more efficiently clean polluted water. Any discoveries that help, I don't care what 'label' they came from.
Anyway, just wanted to say that I was reading (more than once!) and considering and appreciating your posts even if I might not be in line with your thoughts on the matter.
Eileen
P.S. Yours too TINC
This post is for readers of the FECC forum. Permission to copy this post elsewhere is not granted.
-
Pete Dube
- Posts: 7712
- Registered for: 21 years
- Location: South Carolina
- Has thanked: 82 times
- Been thanked: 530 times
Maurice -MauriceinIreland wrote:Pete, On all our many life on earth TV documentaries (Hundreds a year!) evolution is given as the reason for the great variety of animals and other life on this planet...a pale blue dot in the Universe.
Older children watching these programmes become a little confused thinking of the garden of Eden, Noah's Ark and the many other stories fed to them by, TEACHERS!
Think about it:-)
I have no objections to evolution per se, I'm just not sold on some aspects of it. More importantly, I want evolution taught in an honest 'warts and all' manner in the public schools of my country. I'm not a literal genesis/young Earth creationist, and I don't want that taught in public schools. That's creationism, and I am a firm believer in the notion of the separation of Church and State. As you know I am a theist, but my scepticism regarding some aspects of evolution has nothing to do with my theism at this point in time. So I don't view evolution as evilution from any religious standpoint. Even a staunch atheist such as yourself or Colin B. can have questions and doubts about some aspects of evolution. But it was my theism that got me interested in the subject in the first place. And it is a fascinating subject. Darwin was a seeker and a great thinker, and he came up with a brilliant theory. One that continues to have a lot of explanatory power. I believe at least some of it is true. I just don't believe that the neo-Darwinistic paradigm is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Torben -
I wasn't angry in my reply to you. You obviously have a biological science background, and I appreciate your response. My apologies if I came across as angry.
Yes our basic difference of opinion is over macroevolution. I don't dismiss it. I just don't think there's enough solid evidence to present it as fact. Now I'm not referring to the technical definition of macro-evolution, change above species level, but rather to macro-evolution in the 'big picture' sense: fish to amphibian; Amphibian to reptile; reptile to mammal. I'm just not convinced that accumulative micro-evolutionary changes over the course of time can account for these major changes.
I mentioned the origin of life in my previous post because that's part of the hardcore neo-Darwinistic paradigm being taught in our public schools.
As for evolution being protected from false teaching you were obviously referring to I.D. But I.D. is a theory, just as there are theories within evolution. Setting aside the intelligent design inference aspect (which is the controversial part) at the very least the evidence for irreducible complexity should be allowed to be demonstrated. If Darwinism is a valid scientific theory it must be falsifiable, and irreducible complexity would falsify it. And perhaps that's the real reason it's being protected. Not from false teaching but from falsification.
Eileen -
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
-
MauriceinIreland
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v498/Banned_Member/EVOLUTION.jpg
Pete I was going to buy the book on the link last year for Christmas...it was 35 Euros.
Today I bought it new for 11.99 Euros:-) I suggest you get a copy maybe from the library, read it, and then tell me you still feel the same about Evolution.
Jonathan Miller's "Brief History of Belief" BBC 2 is also worth a look. The series started last week when he visited some notable Atheists in New York to discuss the rise in dangerous Fundementalism in the USA. (It may be available later on DVD?)
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v498/Banned_Member/EVOLUTION.jpg[/IMG] Why isn't that opening...now That is the question:-)
I like to keep up to date on scientific matters so do not miss much on the TV and mags etc.
Pete I was going to buy the book on the link last year for Christmas...it was 35 Euros.
Today I bought it new for 11.99 Euros:-) I suggest you get a copy maybe from the library, read it, and then tell me you still feel the same about Evolution.
Jonathan Miller's "Brief History of Belief" BBC 2 is also worth a look. The series started last week when he visited some notable Atheists in New York to discuss the rise in dangerous Fundementalism in the USA. (It may be available later on DVD?)
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v498/Banned_Member/EVOLUTION.jpg[/IMG] Why isn't that opening...now That is the question:-)
I like to keep up to date on scientific matters so do not miss much on the TV and mags etc.
-
Torben
Pete
I certainly don't believe you were angry in your reply or towards me, but I thought I noticed some anger inside you. Sorry if I misjudged you on that. I felt some anger and was harsh as a result, but hopefully not too much.
You're right about my background as I am very interested in cladistics, especially that of extant "higher" vertebrates. It's what I spend most of my free time with at the moment (kind of sad, really). Of course, cladistics both supports and presumes evolution. How evolution works does not matter and is of little interest to me as is the origin of life.
As for irreducible complexity, yes, evidence for it should be allowed to be demonstrated. Evolutionists as early as Darwin himself called for it to be demonstrated (not under that name, though). So far there's no evidence, so far there's no reason to teach it, and, given the time that has passed since and the evidence for evolution that has been amassed, I'm sure there'll never be one.
I certainly don't believe you were angry in your reply or towards me, but I thought I noticed some anger inside you. Sorry if I misjudged you on that. I felt some anger and was harsh as a result, but hopefully not too much.
You're right about my background as I am very interested in cladistics, especially that of extant "higher" vertebrates. It's what I spend most of my free time with at the moment (kind of sad, really). Of course, cladistics both supports and presumes evolution. How evolution works does not matter and is of little interest to me as is the origin of life.
As for irreducible complexity, yes, evidence for it should be allowed to be demonstrated. Evolutionists as early as Darwin himself called for it to be demonstrated (not under that name, though). So far there's no evidence, so far there's no reason to teach it, and, given the time that has passed since and the evidence for evolution that has been amassed, I'm sure there'll never be one.
-
ColinB
- Posts: 29384
- Registered for: 21 years
- Location: Gravesend, UK
- Has thanked: 73 times
- Been thanked: 101 times
- Contact:
While we're talking about religion, I thought I'd pass on this comment from a member of the public on the BBC News site:
Needless to say, I agree with his sentiments completely !
Not quite the topic being discussed here, but interesting, nevertheless.Religion should not be an important part in people's lives anymore.
Now that people are educated, they can see that there is no real need to be religious.
Religion is a source of bigotry, division and hatred in society far more so than it is a force for good.
Coming from a country that was once fundamentalist, and that is becoming secular, I can tell you that religion has been a great force of oppression and misery for Irish people.
I was not sorry to see it decline.
Ryan Nielson, Ireland
Needless to say, I agree with his sentiments completely !
Colin B
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
-
MauriceinIreland
ColinB, The funny thing is............. it was the Roman Catholic church which was at the forefront of Education in Ireland (And still is)
Therefore it is hastening it's own demise by educating a very large percentage of the population. TV Science programmes help accelerate the process.
Now what about "Thought for Today" on BBC Radio 4 every weekday morning, not to mention, "Sunday", and "Songs of Praise", seems to me England gets far more religious programmes than we do here 8)
Therefore it is hastening it's own demise by educating a very large percentage of the population. TV Science programmes help accelerate the process.
Now what about "Thought for Today" on BBC Radio 4 every weekday morning, not to mention, "Sunday", and "Songs of Praise", seems to me England gets far more religious programmes than we do here 8)
-
ColinB
- Posts: 29384
- Registered for: 21 years
- Location: Gravesend, UK
- Has thanked: 73 times
- Been thanked: 101 times
- Contact:
Maurice -
Yes, there seems to be a lingering idea in the UK media that religious progs are somehow the 'proper' thing to do.
How about if all broadcasters stop them, and let people worship in their own way [if they choose to do so].
Would suit me.
Yes, there seems to be a lingering idea in the UK media that religious progs are somehow the 'proper' thing to do.
How about if all broadcasters stop them, and let people worship in their own way [if they choose to do so].
Would suit me.
Colin B
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions - Voltaire
-
MauriceinIreland
-
MauriceinIreland
Pete Dube, I think we covered that one before.
Those Christians carrying out the murders for Nazis, Communist, and fascist leaders were easily persueded to kill just like the present day lunatics in the middle East are encouraged by Rabbis and Islamic clerics.
Young Christian Americans are murdering other religious people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How many thousands of years of religious murders shall we count?
ColinB, Did you see Jonathan Miller on BBC 2 TV tonight discussing the history of Atheism. What an Intelligent guy!
The Tom Paine "The Age of Reason" section was very interesting indeed. Americans honoured him for a while.
Those Christians carrying out the murders for Nazis, Communist, and fascist leaders were easily persueded to kill just like the present day lunatics in the middle East are encouraged by Rabbis and Islamic clerics.
Young Christian Americans are murdering other religious people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How many thousands of years of religious murders shall we count?
ColinB, Did you see Jonathan Miller on BBC 2 TV tonight discussing the history of Atheism. What an Intelligent guy!
The Tom Paine "The Age of Reason" section was very interesting indeed. Americans honoured him for a while.
-
Pete Dube
- Posts: 7712
- Registered for: 21 years
- Location: South Carolina
- Has thanked: 82 times
- Been thanked: 530 times
MauriceinIreland wrote:Pete Dube, I think we covered that one before.
Those Christians carrying out the murders for Nazis, Communist, and fascist leaders were easily persueded to kill just like the present day lunatics in the middle East are encouraged by Rabbis and Islamic clerics.
Oh ok, it was all the Christians fault. What revisionist history! I think there were plenty of atheists in the mix Maurice - particularly at the upper level, the architects of genocide. The truth is that it was fanaticism. And neither Christian, Muslim or atheist can claim immunity.
How dare you! Not only do you insult the men and women serving in the armed forces of my country, but you also insult those of your own. Were the Irish and English who fought in WW-2 murderers? Young Americans, Christian, Jewish, atheist, and agnostic are fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend the 'other religious people' from the Islamic-fascists who want to impose totalitarian Muslim fundamentalism. That should at least be acknowledged regardless of what one thinks of the Iraq war. Those same Islamic-fascists would do the same to Ireland if they could. Would you be for war then Maurice? Or would you still be spouting the same phoney-baloney, high-minded, 'enlightened' anti-war, secular humanism, John Lennon/Imagine drivel? If the latter, then you're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are.MauriceinIreland wrote:
Young Christian Americans are murdering other religious people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You guys have really done an amazing job playing catch up in the 20th century.MauriceinIreland wrote: How many thousands of years of religious murders shall we count?
