Re: Dinesh D'Souza: Atheism Masquerading as Science


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2bb91f57-f590-406a-9e3d-11237c421054@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 7, 7:59 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip

Miller's quote, as it is quoted, contradicts his sermons which assert
evolution and Christianity are compatible.

No, it doesn't. It talks about the assumptions/presumptions of academics
about the religious opinions of other academics. It doesn't say anything
at all about evolution or its compatibility with Christianity.


This is what I was attempting to understand. Originally I suspected a
quote mine by D'Souza *for this particular* quote, was I and am I
correct?

The quote appears to be correct. What D'Souza's intent was is unclear.



Everytime I listen to this
moron I notice that he only asserts and never explains how.

He's writing about religion. It's to be expected. You assert that God
created the Universe, but you never say how.


I have no respect for Ken Miller because he claims to be a Christian
but argues Atheist evolutionism tooth and nail.

However Dr. Miller does not argue "atheist evolutionism" at all. He
supports the scientific theory of evolution, and he argues for his view of
theistic evolution. Evolution, in of itself is not atheist. Dr.
Miller is a Christian, and you don't have "respect" for him, because his
presense contradicts your belief, that one can't be Christian, and accept
evolution at the same time. There is no other reason for your distain.

He insults everyones
intelligence.

How so? You don't have any intelligence to insult, and those who do have
intelligence don't seem to be insulted by Dr. Miller's position.

Atheists accept him as a brother.

Atheists and non-atheists accept him as a scientist. Atheists disagree
with his religious beliefs.

His Christianity is
counterfeit. A true Christian is hated by Atheists.

Dr. Miller's Christianity appears to be quite real, unlike your own
assertions to be Christian. Also, from what I've observed, atheists in
general don't hate "true Christians", or for that matter, "true" any
religionists. It seems to be your own fantasy that atheists hate "true
Christians" (which you, oddly enough, seem to consider yourself). You
seem to be under the idea that other people are exactly like yourself.
You hate atheists (or anyone who you define as an atheist), so you imagine
that atheists hate you. That most people don't spend their lives in a
state of hatred doesn't seem to occur to you.




Miller is
evidently confused since what he writes, and what he says,
contradicts. Notice I said 'confused' and not 'liar.' But in a court
of law anyone could prove Miller a liar. His written quotes are lies
compared to what he says in his sermons.

Every evolutionist who took the stand at Dover and asserted evolution
and Christianity compatible, lied. Judge Jones lied when he believed
them.

They made statements about their religious opinions. It is not illegal
to hold religious opinions, even if they contradict yours, and even if
they make no sense.


False.

How so? You always assert, but never explain.


They said evolution was compatible with Christianity. It is not.

That's your opinion. It's not shared by other people.

They
lied. Evolution presupposes that Atheism is true.

Again, that's your opinion, and you've been shown many times that is wrong.
Evolution does not presume that atheism is true. It presumes that what can
be observed and tested is consistent with reality. It's quite possible to
believe in God, and still accept that science is a way of determining the
truth.



You do not hold a monopoly on Christian doctrine.


This implies Christian doctrine to be ambiguous - it is not.

Christian doctrine has produced thousands of different sects, denominations,
and congregations. Biblical inerrancy is not a basic part of most
Christian doctrine. Belief in the teaching of Christ is, which, oddly
enough, you seem to reject.


We can assemble hundreds of direct free standing quotes that say
evolution excludes God which corresponds to incompatibility.

You could also assemble hundreds of quotes that assert the opposite. It
is a matter of religious opinion, and the court has quite correctly
accepted the statements of self-described Christians who do not see a
contradiction between their faith and observed reality.


Evolution is pro-Atheism and extremely hostile to Christianity.

That's your opinion, and it's wrong. Evolution is not hostile at all to
Christianity, it's neutral to Christianity. It may be not compatable with
your own beliefs, but that's doesn't mean it's "hostile" to anything.
Your own beliefs are not mainstream Christianity, or even a close
aproximation. Your beliefs are far out on the fringe.


Someday these witnesses will be held accountable for their brazen lies
and Judge Jones will be removed for turning a blind eye to self-
evident lies.

Again, you imagine your own fanatsies to be based in reality. They are
not. Judge Jones ruled correctly, and within the law. The witnesses for
the plaintiffs did not lie, it was the defendants who did. Your revenge
fantasy will not happen.


Apparently you have no awareness of what objective truth is.

Ray, this claim applies to you, much more than anyone else in this
discussion. "Objective truth" is not your own fantasy, or your own flawed
opinions.

snip

They only asserted compatibility
otherwise evolution is Atheism and unconstitutional.

Evolution is not atheism.

Always has been and always will be.

No, it's not, Ray. No matter how much you wish it were.


Atheism is not unconstitutional.

As a anti-religious position, yes it is.

Except that atheism is not anti-religion, it's lack of religion.

That is why the witnesses
lied.

It wasn't the plaintiff's witnesses that lied.

It is not a matter of subjective opinion if evolutuion is
friendly to Christianity.

Note that no one is claiming that evolution is "friendly" to Christianity.
It's neutral towards Christianity. Even if it were "unfriendly" to
Christian beliefs, it's still the truth. Christian belief has to fit
itself around the truth, whatever that may be. Something doesn't become
wrong, just because it's against Ray's personal beliefs.


Objective fact says evolution is an enemy to
Christianity: God is denied credit as Creator; design does imply
invisible Designer.

Ray, your personal opinion is not "objective fact". Evolution is no more
enemy to Christianity than is gravity, meterology, or germ theory. Giving
credit to God as creator is a religious belief, not a factual statement.
What's more, it's been explained to you many times why the appearance of
design does not imply an "invisible designer". I've asked you many times
now to provide a single instance of a known designed object that had an
invisible designer. You have not provided a single example.


Darwinism says material causation, not set in
motion or controlled by God, produced reality.

"Darwinism" is a biological theory, regarding the work of natural selection
on variation in a population. It says nothing about what 'produced
reality'. Material causation is all that can be observed, and science has
no way to say whether or not God controlls material causation.

This is why nearly all
Atheists support evolution.

You keep getting this wrong, Ray. The atheists who support evolution do
so, because it's the best scientific explantion for the evidence. They
don't support evolution because it rejects God.

These facts are so clear and undisputed.

No matter how often you try to repeat this falsehood, it doesn't become
true. The statements you make are not fact, and they are disputed by
anyone who is familiar with the evidence.


Judge Jones is a liar, the witnesses are liars, and you are a liar
because it is impossible for any educated person not to know these
basic facts.

Ray, once again, just because you mistakenly claim something, it does not
become a "basic fact". Your assertions are wrong, and repeating something
wrong, does not make it right.

snip

I get my ideas from many places, not just one short quote. This
particular one comes mostly from observation of scientists and other
academics. The hint that this idea is not based on one short quote is
when I begin "What I suspect is more likely is ..."


We cannot trust anything you say since you lie to our face and insult
our intelligence and deny the Atheism intent and foundation of
evolution.

Has it ever occured to you that what you believe may not be true? That
what he says is true, and your own cliaims are incorrect? There is no
atheist intent to evolution, and it's not founded on atheism.

This means you and your kind will think of nothing to forge
scientific evidence that must be taken on trust by lay persons and the
general public.

Do you have any evidence of any forgery of scientific evidence? The "lay
persons" and "general public" can, of course take the time and effort to
learn, and find out for themselves. Those that have done so, have found
out that statements by evolutionary scientists are correct, and those by
creationists are false.


Evolution corresponds to Atheism and seeks to refute Genesis.

Only, it does not. That you assert this, in defiance of evidence to the
contrary, does not make it true.

This is
an absolute objective fact.

Actually, it's your opinion, and a false one at that.

The bias of Darwinian judges have
corrupted the Constiution to make it say what the ACLU wants it to
say.

The ACLU wants it to say what it was written to say. That the rights of
individuals are protected.

The Constitution in no way, shape or form, prohibits criticism of
Evolution or anything for that matter.

That's correct, and if scientists ever find any legitamate criticism of
evolution, the government will do nothing to stop it. The "Intelligent
Design" crowd don't have any legitamate criticisms. They have religious
beliefs that aren't scientific.

We know just the opposite is
true: the Constitution guarantees free speech.

The Constitution does guarantee free speech, but it also guarantees
religious freedom, which IDists seek to violate. Free speech does not
mean that one has the right to teach religious beliefs as if they were
science.

Atheists in sheeps
clothing have corrupted the Constitution.

By ruling according to black letter law?

It is judges who believe in
evolution who have ajudicated this obvious corruption.

Can you show any evidence that these judges "believe in" evolution?

The Founding
Fathers never intended the theory which nearly all Atheists accept to
be immune from criticism.

And evolutionary theory (which is not accepted by "nearly all atheists") is
not immune to criticism. If you can provide any legitimate evidence that
contradicts evolution, you are free to present it to any legitamate
scientific journal. So far, the creationists have entirely failed to
present such evidence. Instead they have attempted to use political force
to get their ideas presented as science.

This is a 20th century corruption of the
Constiution by judges who believe in evolution. Pure self-evident
lies.

Ray, protecting religious freedom is not a corruption of the Constitution.
It's not "lies" to anyone who knows the facts.


snip

I have never said the Bible is wrong - ridiculous.

So the book of James is exactly as accurate as the book of Genesis?

Care to address this contradiction of yours?

DJT


.

Relevant Pages