Re: the meaning of the holocaust for scientists


Ray Martinez wrote:
Ken Rode wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:

<snip>

The post is typical Dana: ACLU.

We both know Dana is a pathological liar. He claims to be a Christian.
Everything he says exposes himself not to be as such.

Ray, I get so confused trying to keep up with your "psychology". Is is
these qualities above of which you are most guilty: pathological liar,
claims to be Christian, not such?

My real intent is
the atheists here at T.O. They are not stupid, they know Dana is just
trying to misrepresent the enemy - this is why they never call him on
his obvious lies. If Dana was a real Christian he would be treated like
me. Atheists and theists are mortal enemies. Here at T.O. they are cozy
= one is not as such.

Mortal enemies, Ray? This theme of yours again -- your need to be hated.
How incredibly childish. Please don't project your need to be the
subject of hate and disgust onto other people.


Here we have an atheist unwilling to acknowledge a self-evident
undisputed fact: atheists and theists are mortal enemies.

First I've heard of this. Someone believes something I don't - why
would we be enemies?


Why ?

Answer: Because the "theists" here at Talk Origins are no different in
their beliefs than atheist beliefs = not a matter of opinion one group
is not genuine. If the theists here at T.O. were true theists then the
atheists would never support them = axiomatic truth.

Silly boy. There's no logical need for Christians to be ignorant or
irrational. Sure, their *theology is non-rational, but so is my
preference for swing over country western; it's not a fit subject for
science.


This now brings me to the real point: If both THESE groups of atheists
and "theists" are willing to deny (lie) that atheists and theists are
mortal enemies then just think what they do with the complicated things
of science ?


Right. We might stay rational. We might find reconciliation between
facts in a model which explains them all. We might go out for espresso
later, or a drink. Once two groups who disagree in something start
behaving civilly to each other, who knows where it might end? We might
even end up with a sane world. <gasp!> Could be the end to war as we
know it, or worse - the excuse certain sects need to feel persecuted


Ray, did it never occur to you that you get the reaction that you do not
because you're a "Christian", but for some other reason? You are not
ridiculed because you are a Christian. You are ridiculed because your
capacity for logic and reason seems severely underdeveloped, and you
seem to revel in that.


What is written above continues to deny and defend atheist/"theist"
sweetheart relationship here at Talk Origins Usenet. The commentary
defends the sweetheart relationship via special pleading the mortal
enemy status of atheists and theists to be suspended here at Talk
Origins. I agree the mortal enemy status is "suspended", not because it
is not true, but because one group is not as such.

We also have Russians and Yankees, gays and straights, men and women,
teens and old fogies, pacifists and veterans, all coming together.

The uniting characteristic is a love for science, and an interest in
this particular subject.

You are more than a little confused, Ray.


The atheist who wrote the above commentary recognizes the "enigma" that
I observe is a matter of logic, but he simply denies while not even
attempting to show the illogic with an argument. This failure is caused
by the fact that there can be no argument showing the "illogic" of
pointing out atheist/theist agreement means one is not as such.


Oh, no, we still disagree, Ray. But not in science. If you were capable
of reading for comprehension, you would know that we often disagree on
matters ethical, political, metphysical, etc. But we pretty much agree
on the methods of science as the best way to find out how the world
works.


My hook is in Dana's jaw, this is why he follows me around and
stalker-posts. Dana is inflamed with the truth and the only way he can
obtain any satisfaction is put on sheeps clothing while arguing
standard atheistic nonsense. The real issue is: Why do atheists never
stand their own ground by saying ToE is supported by theists ? Answer:
Because ToE is atheist philosophy otherwise and falsified: they NEED
"theists."

See, here's a good example where your "logic" completely flies apart.
You make it seem that "athiest philosophy" is so weak even to athiests
that they recognize a necessity to have it bolstered from the theist
realm. That is complete idiocy, and simply shows an inability on your
part to even begin to understand people who have different beliefs than
you do.

Read what the atheist above said:

1. Repeated illogic charge while offering no counter logic or argument.

Yes. Are you ever going ot counter with an example of logic? Even here,
you merely assert that which is barely comprehensible. You do not offer
any kind of logical argument.


2. Repeated my charge that atheists here at Talk Origins cede to theist
support instead of just saying, "Yeah, the evidence supports our
worldview."

It would help if you could understand that "scientist != atheist".


3. Ended commentary with insult = inability to refute.

Ray, you haven't *argued anything yet.

You just keep spouting non-sequitors, bathing them in hyperbole, tying
them together in hubris and pathos, then call it an argument.

Your claims are barely comrehensible; they certainly do not follow from
anything - logically or otherwise.


WHERE can anyone show that one atheist here at Talk Origins ever said #
2 above ?

Atheism is not the issue here. The data is, and any model which might
account for them.


They don't because: They know they need "theists" or Darwinism is
atheist philosophy.

We don't "need" theists or nontheists of any stripe. We need testable
models which explain the evidence. Luckily, I happen to have one right
here... <reaches over the coffe cup> Here. It's called the modern
synthesis, or the Theory of Evolution.

It is a recognition that they are subordinate to
theists and they have no evidence to support the validity of their
worldview.

Is this your roundabout way of again saying that you have no response
to the evidence? Please explain why humans have a plantaris tendon,
without using the words "theist" or "athiest".


With this said: all objective persons know these "theists" are not real
theists, but theists who argue atheist philosophy = the theist claim is
simply a recognition

Begging the question.

that atheism by itself is unsupportable,

Some would argue that a lack of belief in gods is the default position.
Are you saying that you can prove Odin is a real entity? If not, how do
you estblish Yahweh's existence?

untenable,

Why would I have to ten a lack of beliefs?

And what does this have to do with science?

and the epitome of dogmatism.

Nope; I'll happily accept the Triple Goddess and Her Horned Consort,
the Desrt God of the Hebrews, Ba'al, or any other as a real entity if
you can provide some evidence. (Which belief is always contingent on
further evidence, and should not be confused with a commitment to a
cause.)


By sacrificing what Darwin accomplished for the sole intent of
attempting to obtain revenge upon Creationists,

This is paranoid fantasy, Ray. Is it yur *intent to convince lurkers
that creationists are all insane? Please provide even *suggestive
evidence that Darwin was motivated by anything other than a desire to
figure out what was happening?

Darwinists today have
silently admitted ToE is nonsense without a Deity.

How do we silently admit anything? Could you provide a quote or other
indication that any sane person could agree implies this?

This need (evolution
created by Deity) is subjective and sourceless.

I wouldn't say that. Its source is entirely in your mind.

The only source for
Deity says He created reality the way Genesis says He did: sudden
miracle.

Unless that a lie. Or incorrect. Or you misunderstand it.

Please explain why we should agree that you are infallible.

A literal reading of Genesis seems to contradict the evidence. Should
we believe the evidence of the creator, or your interpretation of
Scott's crazy rants?

How much money did you give him, BTW?


Logically, your hatred of true Christians has backfired,

Nope; my workout partner in the university for four years is a
Christian. My son is a Christian. My knife instructor is a Christian
(His is a pagan. I think.). I don't hate Christians at all.

I'm not too fond of you, true.

negating all
your perceived gains,

Gains? How have we lost our data? Hey! Who was supposed to be doing the
backup?!

and entrapped you into giving up on believing
that nature produced itself without any help from God.

What does this have to do with how the species originated? All siences
are secular. Secular != atheist.

Farming is secular.
Plumbing is secular.
Chemistry is secular.
Evolutionary science is secular.
Carpentry is secular.

Darwin would be
appalled. He lived the last quarter of his life as a staunch atheist
based upon the evidence.

I would say reluctant but genuine atheist. Staunch is a curious word.
It was never a public issue for Darwin; he avoided confrontation,
especially on this subject.

We historians know this is a undisputed fact.

Don't flatter yourself. You aren't even an amateur historian. You are
too delusional, too contemptuous of the facts, too hostile, too
uneducated, and too undisciplined. Historians are scholars, and their
methodology is much like a scientist's. Until you are willing to give
up ideas because of the facts, you cannot be an historian, nor
understand science.


Ray

Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sean: "Im an immutabilist"
    ... Lucid people may actually believe something along these lines, Ray. ... (Trans: Because Mark cites interpretations of scripture with which I ... be a real Christian or is of nefarious intent. ... Atheists: no evidence exists supporting the existence of God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ronald Fisher: racist dunce
    ... as you think a Christian should act. ... That's interesting, as the only one who appears to be enraged here, is you, Ray. ... claims to be objective, assumes Hitler is a Christian, ... Atheists, by and large don't murder people, and people who claim to be Christians have murdered people quite readily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: *** Post of the Month for December 2005: Vote Now! ***
    ... It shows that "approval" is not due to Raymond G.'s ... He's not as Ray M. claims, ... > Atheists and theists are mortal enemies. ... >> a Christian that you claim to be rather than using a bullhorn to tell ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: the meaning of the holocaust for scientists
    ... He claims to be a Christian. ... Atheists and theists are mortal enemies. ... atheists and theists are mortal enemies. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: the meaning of the holocaust for scientists
    ... We both know Dana is a pathological liar. ... He claims to be a Christian. ... Atheists and theists are mortal enemies. ... atheists and theists are mortal enemies. ...
    (talk.origins)