Re: the meaning of the holocaust for scientists


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1141361010.788482.295650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.

Actually, Ray, you know that I am not a liar. You are simply driven to ad
hominem by your inability to refute anything I say.



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

Ray, I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone, nor have I. On the other hand,
you have misrepresented me, and many others. Was this deliberate?


- this is why they never call him on
his obvious lies.

What "obvious lies" do you think I should be called upon?


If Dana was a real Christian he would be treated like
me.

I am a Christian, whether or not you want to admit it. The reason I'm not
treated like you is that I'm not an obnoxious jerk.

Atheists and theists are mortal enemies. Here at T.O. they are cozy
= one is not as such.

Atheists and theists are not mortal enemies. They are people who disagree
about a belief. People can disagree without violence, or hatred.


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.

It's not an "undisputed fact" or even a real fact. It's an assumption,
which is false.


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


Feigning ignorance about the fact that atheists and theists are mortal
enemies except here at Talk Origins.

Atheists and theists are not "mortal enemies". Even if they were, Christ
tells us to love our enemies, not hate them.


Again, we have, in this case, an atheist, who has the ability to follow
and understand complicated scientific arguments, yet all of a sudden
the basic objective fact of opposing worldviews is baffling.

That's because what you are calling a "basic objective fact" is simply your
own flawed opinion.


What is obvious is that the atheists here at Talk Origins need the
"theists" because they have no answer to: ToE = atheist philosophy
packaged as evidence.

The theory of evolution is not atheist philosophy. It's a scientific
theory.

Conversely the "theists" are only as such in
title after they open their mouth.

Unlike Ray, genuine Christians are not required to check their brains at the
door.






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.

Ray, your opinion is not an "axiomatic truth". It's not even anywhere near
the 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.


Notice the two comments are non-sequitur caused by the initial
invulnerable logic.

Notice that Ray proclaims his flawed opinions as "invulnerable logic" and
mistakes a simile for a non-sequitur.



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


Evasion of very uncomfortable axiomatic point: Theists and Atheists who
agree on origins = one aint as such.

What makes you think that "Theists" and "Atheists" agree on the ultimate
origin of life?

If Darwinism was anything about
supporting the existence of God then atheists would not have anything
to do with it.

The theory of evolution does not deny the existance of God. Atheists tend
to support the theory of evolution, along with Christians, Jews, Islamist,
Bhuddists, etc.

The "theists" in question are ACLU/atheist ass
kissing/sperm buckets.

Ad hominem yet again. One wonders why Ray feels the need to insult people
for disagreeing with him.

Puppets who drag Genesis into their
rape/courtrooms and hold her down for the dirty work.

Ray is strangely fond of this phrase. I presume it has something to do with
his facination with violent sexual images.


The ugly metaphoric truth is realized in the fact that most will be
more upset with the metaphor rather than the rape of the Bible by
"theists".

Those who accept evolutionary science do not "rape" the Bible. They simply
see it as a pre-scientific work. Ray is the one who abuses the Bible, and
tries to assert that his beliefs trump the word of God.


After my paper is released these same theists will want to return to
being atheist.

If that "paper" ever gets released that is.... In any case, if it ever
lurches out of it's dungeon, it undoubtedly isn't going to impress anyone.


DJT

.

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: Is Ron O. Brain damaged?
    ... contradictions in the "textual evidence". ... Dana Tweedy claims to be a Christian. ... Ray do you admit your opinion is "atheist ideology"? ... you are the one who "agrees with atheists" against the Bible. ...
    (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)