Giving Up Darwin

PFD

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
16,465
19,731
0
Dallas
The only one of the 4 horseman with any originality of thought.
Who are the other three?
Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and some old guy named Daniel Dennett.
Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene, which continues to be influential in evolutionary biology I believe. That’s nothing to sneeze at. Harris has a lot of interesting ideas on consciousness. Don’t know Dennet.
They are all brilliant guys in their field. I was more referring to the field of apologetics that the Hitchens quote was aimed at. He was excellent at the circuit and debates. The others were over their head.
I get the feeling they approach it the same way as I do and aren’t going to waste time doing a bunch of reading of the stuff you do that assumes Jesus rose from the dead.
It takes an absurd amount of time to keep up with those guys. I’ve been out of the loop for about a year since I started down the paganism / new age mysticism research path.

It’s also more entertaining since the modern apologetics vs atheists crowds seemed to have devolved to just yelling the same stuff right past each other.
If you want to see these spokesmen for the so-called New Atheists dissected and embarrassed by a fellow atheist, then check out Seven Types of Atheists by John Gray.

If you want to see them similarly rolled by a Christian, then check out The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,604
46,239
0
If you want to see these spokesmen for the so-called New Atheists dissected and embarrassed by a fellow atheist, then check out Seven Types of Atheists by John Gray.

If you want to see them similarly rolled by a Christian, then check out The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day.
Pretty sure I won’t think they’re embarrassed.
 

kennoisewater

Member Who Talks
Nov 19, 2018
638
1,104
0
If you want to see these spokesmen for the so-called New Atheists dissected and embarrassed by a fellow atheist, then check out Seven Types of Atheists by John Gray.

If you want to see them similarly rolled by a Christian, then check out The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day.
Why is it a contest? I believe in my Savior Jesus Christ and I can’t begin to prove His divinity or even His actual existence. So what?
 

PFD

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
16,465
19,731
0
Dallas
Why is it a contest? I believe in my Savior Jesus Christ and I can’t begin to prove His divinity or even His actual existence. So what?
I’m having trouble understanding how your post logically relates to my post.

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett are voices of the so-called New Atheists. They are loudly, arrogantly, and militantly anti-Christian (and anti-religion of any kind).

When someone publicly espouses that kind of provocative philosophy, they’re going to attract attention and invite responses. From their own (Gray) and their opponents (Day).

Ideas are always in contest with conflicting or adversarial ideas. That’s one of the basic realities of logic and philosophy.

Question in response: why does that bother you or strike you as somehow inappropriate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 40A and bHero

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,604
46,239
0
Before even reading them? Or, more accurately, without reading them?

You really do act like @JG when it comes to this one particular topic. It’s bizarre.
No, I'm saying I'm sure their arguments are not going strike me quite like the pwnage you do. Regardless, even if these guys do "dissect and embarrass" some other guys, that does not mean that Jesus christ rose from the dead. I have much better ways to spend my time.
 

kennoisewater

Member Who Talks
Nov 19, 2018
638
1,104
0
I’m having trouble understanding how your post logically relates to my post.

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett are voices of the so-called New Atheists. They are loudly, arrogantly, and militantly anti-Christian (and anti-religion of any kind).

When someone publicly espouses that kind of provocative philosophy, they’re going to attract attention and invite responses. From their own (Gray) and their opponents (Day).

Ideas are always in contest with conflicting or adversarial ideas. That’s one of the basic realities of logic and philosophy.

Question in response: why does that bother you or strike you as somehow inappropriate?
I was replying specifically to your comment about Christians embarrassing atheists in a debate or something. I just don’t understand the concept of making Christians vs Non-Christians an adversarial situation.
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,786
54,902
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
I was replying specifically to your comment about Christians embarrassing atheists in a debate or something. I just don’t understand the concept of making Christians vs Non-Christians an adversarial situation.
They made it adversarial, intentionally, decades ago. The context is philosophical debate, not evangelicalism. No one is trying to convert them in these types of interactions. They are trying to expose the flaws in their version of truth and logic. Which is important because they were a driving influence on pushing many away from Christianity, as was their stated goal.
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,786
54,902
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
If you want to see these spokesmen for the so-called New Atheists dissected and embarrassed by a fellow atheist, then check out Seven Types of Atheists by John Gray.

If you want to see them similarly rolled by a Christian, then check out The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day.
Thank you sir! I probably won't be able to check it for a bit. I've been buried in contextual stuff on the ancient Middle East (and Greece). Really surprising what people thought and believed back in the day and I'm determined to wrap my head around the culture and worldview of the ancient people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PFD and Shane3

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
14,173
4,557
0
Before even reading them? Or, more accurately, without reading them?

You really do act like @JG when it comes to this one particular topic. It’s bizarre.
His belief in evolution is essentially the only option when God is excluded.
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
14,173
4,557
0
They made it adversarial, intentionally, decades ago. The context is philosophical debate, not evangelicalism. No one is trying to convert them in these types of interactions. They are trying to expose the flaws in their version of truth and logic. Which is important because they were a driving influence on pushing many away from Christianity, as was their stated goal.
Right. It’s a cultural war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,922
5,737
0
Texas
No, I'm saying I'm sure their arguments are not going strike me quite like the pwnage you do. Regardless, even if these guys do "dissect and embarrass" some other guys, that does not mean that Jesus christ rose from the dead. I have much better ways to spend my time.
"I have much better ways to spend my time."

Then I don't understand why you don't spend your time in those other ways instead of wasting your time posting pretty much exactly what everyone here already knows you are going to say in any thread involving religion? Not that I give a actually give a **** one way or the other if you want to keep wasting your time responding in these threads, I just don't understand why.
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
14,173
4,557
0
I was replying specifically to your comment about Christians embarrassing atheists in a debate or something. I just don’t understand the concept of making Christians vs Non-Christians an adversarial situation.
Would you say Jesus could have been called adversarial when dealing with certain groups?
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
14,173
4,557
0
"I have much better ways to spend my time."

Then I don't understand why you don't spend your time in those other ways instead of wasting your time posting pretty much exactly what everyone here already knows you are going to say in any thread involving religion? Not that I give a actually give a **** one way or the other if you want to keep wasting your time responding in these threads, I just don't understand why.
Message boards can be addictive.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,604
46,239
0
"I have much better ways to spend my time."

Then I don't understand why you don't spend your time in those other ways instead of wasting your time posting pretty much exactly what everyone here already knows you are going to say in any thread involving religion? Not that I give a actually give a **** one way or the other if you want to keep wasting your time responding in these threads, I just don't understand why.
Listen to me. I’ll do whatever the **** I want and I don’t give a damn if you don’t understand. I don’t understand why you can’t stop with the logorrhea but I don’t say **** and just skip the post all together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TEXBTP

kennoisewater

Member Who Talks
Nov 19, 2018
638
1,104
0
Would you say Jesus could have been called adversarial when dealing with certain groups?
He put on a bit of theater at the Temple by turning over some tables at the marketplace but other than that no. And I definitely don’t think Jesus ever intentionally tried to embarrass anyone.
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
14,173
4,557
0
He put on a bit of theater at the Temple by turning over some tables at the marketplace but other than that no. And I definitely don’t think Jesus ever intentionally tried to embarrass anyone.
When did you last read Matthew 23?
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,786
54,902
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
What was the Levite Heresy? Was it about the sons of God verse?
That's correct, but I meant the Sethite Heresy. Not really sure why I said Levite Heresy (different issue). Short version is that very few believed in the Sethite vs Cain lineage stuff until long after Jesus had died (late 3rd century it started picking up steam), and it's adoption was based on political views to increase church membership, prevent "angel worship" and avoid embarrassment. So they changed the interpretation of the bible to suit.

It required a lot of mental gymnastics to change the reading of the Hebrew and strip the supernatural from the elohim and nephilim parts, but they did. And by the way, this is still taught today in many seminaries. Why? Same reason as 1700+ years ago. In the end, some Christians, back then and today, just don't want to believe the bible means what it says when it talked about divine beings, even in the new testament when Jude and Peter talk about it literally. So people say the apostles are wrong or the authors were being metaphorical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 40A

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,786
54,902
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
He put on a bit of theater at the Temple by turning over some tables at the marketplace but other than that no. And I definitely don’t think Jesus ever intentionally tried to embarrass anyone.
He was adversarial with the Jewish priests and he publicly embarrasses them on several occasions. He called them a brood of vipers to their faces. He mocked them for how they observed the sabbath. He mocked them for how they prayed. He mocked the pagan idols/monuments on multiple occasions. He denounced whole towns of people in Chorazin, Capernaum and Bethsaida. He directly quotes Daniel at the priests when they ask him if he's God. That was a giant slap across their face (they started beating him after). There are others, this is just off the top of my head.

Jesus was most definitely adversarial. Most churches gloss over this stuff.
 
Last edited:

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,922
5,737
0
Texas
Listen to me. I’ll do whatever the **** I want and I don’t give a damn if you don’t understand. I don’t understand why you can’t stop with the logorrhea but I don’t say **** and just skip the post all together.
Sorry to upset you so badly. I really didn't mean to push a button. I already skip most of your posts if the subject of Jesus comes up, so I was just curious why you don't just skip the Jesus posts, as you do with with my logorrhea. It makes no matter to me, again, I was just curious.

But I like that word, "logorrhea", so this post of yours was worth reading. Thanks.
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
14,173
4,557
0
That's correct, but I meant the Sethite Heresy. Not really sure why I said Levite Heresy (different issue). Short version is that very few believed in the Sethite vs Cain lineage stuff until long after Jesus had died (late 3rd century it started picking up steam), and it's adoption was based on political views to increase church membership, prevent "angel worship" and avoid embarrassment. So they changed the interpretation of the bible to suit.

It required a lot of mental gymnastics to change the reading of the Hebrew and strip the supernatural from the elohim and nephilim parts, but they did. And by the way, this is still taught today in many seminaries. Why? Same reason as 1700+ years ago. In the end, some Christians, back then and today, just don't want to believe the bible means what it says when it talked about divine beings, even in the new testament when Jude and Peter talk about it literally. So people say the apostles are wrong or the authors were being metaphorical.
That's correct, but I meant the Sethite Heresy. Not really sure why I said Levite Heresy (different issue). Short version is that very few believed in the Sethite vs Cain lineage stuff until long after Jesus had died (late 3rd century it started picking up steam), and it's adoption was based on political views to increase church membership, prevent "angel worship" and avoid embarrassment. So they changed the interpretation of the bible to suit.

It required a lot of mental gymnastics to change the reading of the Hebrew and strip the supernatural from the elohim and nephilim parts, but they did. And by the way, this is still taught today in many seminaries. Why? Same reason as 1700+ years ago. In the end, some Christians, back then and today, just don't want to believe the bible means what it says when it talked about divine beings, even in the new testament when Jude and Peter talk about it literally. So people say the apostles are wrong or the authors were being metaphorical.
Do you believe the nephilim were hybrids of humans and angels?
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,922
5,737
0
Texas
It sort goes against my curious, wondering about everything nature, but I've decided I have to be content with the realization that I'm just never going to understand many things in the Bible.

Isaiah 55:8-9

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,786
54,902
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
It sort goes against my curious, wondering about everything nature, but I've decided I have to be content with the realization that I'm just never going to understand many things in the Bible.

Isaiah 55:8-9

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Which is just fine by me! We're actually called to seek out and explore all of creation, but we're not called to have all the answers about it.
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
14,173
4,557
0
It sort goes against my curious, wondering about everything nature, but I've decided I have to be content with the realization that I'm just never going to understand many things in the Bible.

Isaiah 55:8-9

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
No worries. I’ve got that insatiable curiosity bug too. Great quote!
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,604
46,239
0
Sorry to upset you so badly. I really didn't mean to push a button. I already skip most of your posts if the subject of Jesus comes up, so I was just curious why you don't just skip the Jesus posts, as you do with with my logorrhea. It makes no matter to me, again, I was just curious.

But I like that word, "logorrhea", so this post of yours was worth reading. Thanks.
I don't skip the jesus posts because I don't want to skip the jesus posts. So why don't you just go back to "skipping" my posts like you say.
 

TEXBTP

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
12,979
4,574
0
It sort goes against my curious, wondering about everything nature, but I've decided I have to be content with the realization that I'm just never going to understand many things in the Bible.

Isaiah 55:8-9

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
The last guy that posted as many bible verses as you was the poster that shall not be named. You kinda remind me of him.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: TexasPalladin

bodieman

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
1,061
1,427
0
Holy ****ing ****.
Jesus post disclaimer but I hope you’ll read...

When I asked my father in law for permission to marry his daughter, he gave It to me. She was knocked up, so he had little choice.

He said that he was disappointed that his daughter’s husband and the father of his future grandchild wasn’t a Christ follower. He also told me that his commercial-scale compose piles could digest a body, bone and all, in a matter of days.

I was incredulous and, with as much respect as I could muster, asked him whether he’d given any consideration to the undeniable correlation between one’s place of birth/parental indoctrination with respect to the accuracy of their religious belief.

I’ll never forget his response and I’ve grown to know and respect this man above all other men that I’ve ever known.

He answered with a question, “what will I have lost by believing and acting according to my beliefs if they prove untrue? I will have loved others as I love myself. I will have restrained from judgement of others. I will have helped those in need. And I will have lived a life that shows others how to do the same. If I die and there’s nothing, the world will still be a better place.”

I know. **** me. Good night ;)
 

theelusiveshadow

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Nov 2, 2016
2,509
4,166
0
I get the feeling they approach it the same way as I do and aren’t going to waste time doing a bunch of reading of the stuff you do that assumes Jesus rose from the dead.
Harris, at least, has spent time reading the Bible (and the Quran), which has sometimes led him to hilariously have to defend it against irrational attacks from secular leftists who want to say that Islam is better. His interview with Cenk Uygur was pretty amusing.

In any case, they do spend time on it... which is why they write books about religion, though given those books' quality, they probably shouldn't. Dawkins in particular has shown sophomoric understanding of basic philosophy; he embarrasses atheist philosophers, and nobody in the field takes him seriously. He's an amateur when it comes to argument, which is why The God Delusion was a joke. Hitchens is more entertaining but didn't offer much more in actual argument, and Harris isn't much better despite having a BA in philosophy. I'm probably most disappointed in Daniel Dennett because he's the only professional philosopher of the bunch, but he seems to not want to call out their nonsense when it shows up. Atheist philosophers like Graham Oppy are far more interesting (and present far smarter critiques of theism) while at the same time being much more professional and congenial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
62,230
12,863
0
I always am struck by the absolute certainty carried in the posters in these discussions. Their view is 100% correct, and anyone who doesn’t believe as they do is not only wrong but really stupidly wrong.

That goes for Christians here but also for atheists like Duke. I’ve had some conversations with Muslims and they sound just as totally convinced that their belief is the only truth.

In one way or another, billions of humans are totally wrong despite being completely convinced that theirs is the only truth.

So many faiths depend upon this though. There can be no other truth than theirs. If you concede that others are allowed their own beliefs and they could be right then your own faith gets called into question.

I think it would be a better world if other beliefs were more respected. But, alas that isn’t the case.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,604
46,239
0
Jesus post disclaimer but I hope you’ll read...

When I asked my father in law for permission to marry his daughter, he gave It to me. She was knocked up, so he had little choice.

He said that he was disappointed that his daughter’s husband and the father of his future grandchild wasn’t a Christ follower. He also told me that his commercial-scale compose piles could digest a body, bone and all, in a matter of days.

I was incredulous and, with as much respect as I could muster, asked him whether he’d given any consideration to the undeniable correlation between one’s place of birth/parental indoctrination with respect to the accuracy of their religious belief.

I’ll never forget his response and I’ve grown to know and respect this man above all other men that I’ve ever known.

He answered with a question, “what will I have lost by believing and acting according to my beliefs if they prove untrue? I will have loved others as I love myself. I will have restrained from judgement of others. I will have helped those in need. And I will have lived a life that shows others how to do the same. If I die and there’s nothing, the world will still be a better place.”

I know. **** me. Good night ;)
You don't need Jesus to do any of that. And it's the arrogance of Christians who think you do that annoys the piss out of me.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,604
46,239
0
Harris, at least, has spent time reading the Bible (and the Quran), which has sometimes led him to hilariously have to defend it against irrational attacks from secular leftists who want to say that Islam is better. His interview with Cenk Uygur was pretty amusing.

In any case, they do spend time on it... which is why they write books about religion, though given those books' quality, they probably shouldn't. Dawkins in particular has shown sophomoric understanding of basic philosophy; he embarrasses atheist philosophers, and nobody in the field takes him seriously. He's an amateur when it comes to argument, which is why The God Delusion was a joke. Hitchens is more entertaining but didn't offer much more in actual argument, and Harris isn't much better despite having a BA in philosophy. I'm probably most disappointed in Daniel Dennett because he's the only professional philosopher of the bunch, but he seems to not want to call out their nonsense when it shows up. Atheist philosophers like Graham Oppy are far more interesting (and present far smarter critiques of theism) while at the same time being much more professional and congenial.
OK, I stand corrected. Maybe they do. I know Harris wrote letter to a christian nation, but it wasn't meant to be a philosophical treatise I thought. Philosophy is mostly bull****.
 

mcb0703!

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 6, 2015
14,229
24,627
0
Before leaving Austin, I was a member of a mega church that had multiple ministers convicted of sexual molesting teen boys

Not long after that, the Catholic Church admitted to hiding numerous priests accused of sexual molesting minors, mostly boys. & then Cardinal Bernard Law was accused of covering up numerous allegations in Boston; so the Vatican moved him from Boston to The Vatican

Then the Vatican thought it would be a good idea to have the Vatican Ambassador to the UN show up at the White House to lecture Bush about invading Iraq; when he showed up, AG John Ashcroft presented overwhelming evidence the Vatican knew about dozens of priests molesting children & did nothing but hide the priests

& after seeing The Vatican, & their gold-plated everything, & marble ****ing toilets, I realized the Catholic Church seems to have different standards for its leadership vs those that give $$$$ to the church

& then being deployed, having soldiers & civilians killed in the name of Islam, I felt pretty good about saying **** religion

I could care less what anybody believes in...I just know religion isn’t the answer many make it out to be given the problems caused by religion
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,604
46,239
0
Before leaving Austin, I was a member of a mega church that had multiple ministers convicted of sexual molesting teen boys

Not long after that, the Catholic Church admitted to hiding numerous priests accused of sexual molesting minors, mostly boys. & then Cardinal Bernard Law was accused of covering up numerous allegations in Boston; so the Vatican moved him from Boston to The Vatican

& after seeing The Vatican, & their gold-plated everything, & marble ****ing toilets, I realized the Catholic Church seems to have different standards for its leadership vs those that give $$$$ to the church

& then being deployed, having soldiers & civilians killed in the name of Islam, I felt pretty good about saying **** religion

I could care less what anybody believes in...I just know religion isn’t the answer many make it out to be given the problems caused by religion
The Venn overlap of child diddlers and church leaders does seem to be quite high.
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: bHero and mcb0703!