the end of the world as we did not know it
- Thread starter dZ
- Start date
- Status
You know Ed, in one way, you're absolutely right---we are all pro-gun, or at least anti-gun control here and we should minimize our differences as much as possible. However, I think one place the pro gun side has been burned in the past is not looking closely enough at our allies. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend in this case.
There are Aryan Nations racists, KKK racists, Neo-Nazis, Black Helicopter nutcases, and other nutburgers of various stripes prattling on about "ZOG" and crap like that, who all claim to support the RKBA.
Of course, if pressed they would probably limit the RKBA to whites or non-Jews or whatever way their prejudices run, but they ARE in the midst of us, and they DO make me uncomfortable. I do NOT consider these people allies and frankly their existence is one of the reasons I want to be able to own guns, in order to defend against them.
Now, I am NOT equating them with the religious right Christians, so don't get me wrong. But all I am saying is, don't let this "all-inclusive" attitude extend too far...yes, we non-believers can get along with the Christians and Jews and whatever that also believe in the RKBA, but I don't think we should just accept ANYONE that professses to be progun. And I also don't think that anyone should assume that simply because someone is progun means they are a religious right-type.
There are Aryan Nations racists, KKK racists, Neo-Nazis, Black Helicopter nutcases, and other nutburgers of various stripes prattling on about "ZOG" and crap like that, who all claim to support the RKBA.
Of course, if pressed they would probably limit the RKBA to whites or non-Jews or whatever way their prejudices run, but they ARE in the midst of us, and they DO make me uncomfortable. I do NOT consider these people allies and frankly their existence is one of the reasons I want to be able to own guns, in order to defend against them.
Now, I am NOT equating them with the religious right Christians, so don't get me wrong. But all I am saying is, don't let this "all-inclusive" attitude extend too far...yes, we non-believers can get along with the Christians and Jews and whatever that also believe in the RKBA, but I don't think we should just accept ANYONE that professses to be progun. And I also don't think that anyone should assume that simply because someone is progun means they are a religious right-type.
Ed Brunner
New member
I agree. I am probably what some of you would call the religous right. I am a Christian, Anti abortion,conservative Republican, pro-gun, biker. veteran, family-first American etc.
But so what???
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
But so what???
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
I have found that some take it on faith that what we see here is it. they have no proof, so they must have faith that what they believe is true.
some believe we came from monkeys. they have no proof, no missing link has been found. so they take it on faith that that's is where man is derived.
christians/jews believe in God the creator, christians of the life and death of Jesus.
They have the Bible to go by. They take it on faith that the Bible is true, and try to live their lives accordingly.
If in the end, the religious are wrong, what have they lost? nothing! they would have live a moral life treating people w/ respect, and doing what is right whether you're religious or not. if they die and just turn into worm dirt, then they have lost nothing in believing in a here after.
but what have the others lost, if what they believe ends up being wrong? I don't think i have to answer that. i think you know!
I have no problem letting people believe what they want, it's their business. But to me, it seems lately, that if you have some religous beliefs, then you're treated like HCI treats
gun owners. I've had about enough of christian trashing. I don't really care what you believe, i won't trash you, but if you think that religious people are the problem, then you evidently don't know what the problem is.. yep, there's kooks, crooks, and assorted other scum disguised as christians, just as there are in every walk of life. believe what you want and i'll believe what i want. but don't ever trash me for what i believe. it's taught in the Bible to turn the other cheek, but i'll only turn it so many times!!!
ok, this is all i'll ever say on this subject!!
------------------
what me worry?
[This message has been edited by longhair (edited August 07, 1999).]
some believe we came from monkeys. they have no proof, no missing link has been found. so they take it on faith that that's is where man is derived.
christians/jews believe in God the creator, christians of the life and death of Jesus.
They have the Bible to go by. They take it on faith that the Bible is true, and try to live their lives accordingly.
If in the end, the religious are wrong, what have they lost? nothing! they would have live a moral life treating people w/ respect, and doing what is right whether you're religious or not. if they die and just turn into worm dirt, then they have lost nothing in believing in a here after.
but what have the others lost, if what they believe ends up being wrong? I don't think i have to answer that. i think you know!
I have no problem letting people believe what they want, it's their business. But to me, it seems lately, that if you have some religous beliefs, then you're treated like HCI treats
gun owners. I've had about enough of christian trashing. I don't really care what you believe, i won't trash you, but if you think that religious people are the problem, then you evidently don't know what the problem is.. yep, there's kooks, crooks, and assorted other scum disguised as christians, just as there are in every walk of life. believe what you want and i'll believe what i want. but don't ever trash me for what i believe. it's taught in the Bible to turn the other cheek, but i'll only turn it so many times!!!
ok, this is all i'll ever say on this subject!!
------------------
what me worry?
[This message has been edited by longhair (edited August 07, 1999).]
Longhair said:
>>some believe we came from monkeys. they have no proof, no missing link has been found. so they take it on faith that that's is where man is derived.<<
No, that's a lie. No one believes we came from monkeys. There is definitive scientific evidence (no faith required) that humans evolves from other hominids, to which monkeys are a distant cousin. We also didn't evolve from apes---we ARE apes, we fit in right between chimpanzees and orangutans. Apes are our first cousins, so to speak.
You may disbelieve in evolution, and that's your privilege, but lying about the evidence and hyperbolizing about the theory only make you look foolish.
>>some believe we came from monkeys. they have no proof, no missing link has been found. so they take it on faith that that's is where man is derived.<<
No, that's a lie. No one believes we came from monkeys. There is definitive scientific evidence (no faith required) that humans evolves from other hominids, to which monkeys are a distant cousin. We also didn't evolve from apes---we ARE apes, we fit in right between chimpanzees and orangutans. Apes are our first cousins, so to speak.
You may disbelieve in evolution, and that's your privilege, but lying about the evidence and hyperbolizing about the theory only make you look foolish.
Longhair also said:
>>If in the end, the religious are wrong, what have they lost? nothing! they would have live a moral life treating people w/ respect, and doing what is right whether you're religious or not. if they die and just turn into worm dirt, then they have lost nothing in believing in a here after.
but what have the others lost, if what they believe ends up being wrong? I don't think i have to answer that. i think you know!<<
That is called "Pascal's Wager" and it is a logical fallacy for this reason: it assumes that christianity is the only religion that could be right. What if Zoroastrianism is correct? Then Christians AND nonbelievers would both be out of luck, along with everyone who isn't a Zoroastrian. What if the Hindi are correct? What if only ONE sect of Christianity will REALLY get you to heaven and the rest won't.
Nope, you are running just as great a risk as any nonbeliever or anyone else. If you think you aren't, you're only being dishonest with yourself.
>>If in the end, the religious are wrong, what have they lost? nothing! they would have live a moral life treating people w/ respect, and doing what is right whether you're religious or not. if they die and just turn into worm dirt, then they have lost nothing in believing in a here after.
but what have the others lost, if what they believe ends up being wrong? I don't think i have to answer that. i think you know!<<
That is called "Pascal's Wager" and it is a logical fallacy for this reason: it assumes that christianity is the only religion that could be right. What if Zoroastrianism is correct? Then Christians AND nonbelievers would both be out of luck, along with everyone who isn't a Zoroastrian. What if the Hindi are correct? What if only ONE sect of Christianity will REALLY get you to heaven and the rest won't.
Nope, you are running just as great a risk as any nonbeliever or anyone else. If you think you aren't, you're only being dishonest with yourself.
Ed Brunner
New member
Rik: Let me tell you why I disagree.The hereafter either is or it isnt.If it is, Who can say with certainty that it is secular or ecumenical or restricted in any way?
And strictly speaking there is no proof that humans are related in any way to apes. There is a strong supposition based on similarities,but there are a lot of differences too.
Are you asking that I accept your hypothesis on faith?
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
And strictly speaking there is no proof that humans are related in any way to apes. There is a strong supposition based on similarities,but there are a lot of differences too.
Are you asking that I accept your hypothesis on faith?
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Ed said "The hereafter either is or it isnt.If it is, Who can say with certainty that it is secular or ecumenical or restricted in any way?" Ed, maybe that's the way I should have phrased it.
And as far as I have seen, the monkey theory, is just that, theory.
------------------
what me worry?
And as far as I have seen, the monkey theory, is just that, theory.
------------------
what me worry?
Mendo...
yep, Richard Dawkins. Here are the first few pages of his book "The Selfish Gene"
http://www.spacelab.net/~catalj/selfpage.htm
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
yep, Richard Dawkins. Here are the first few pages of his book "The Selfish Gene"
http://www.spacelab.net/~catalj/selfpage.htm
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Well...
I don't see the value of this thread, but as its still civil it will remain open for the nonce.
However, I do believe RKBA is indeed an issue that enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The reason the liberals are so successful is that they are so promiscuously accepting of anything contrary to conservative, restraint, common courtesy and decency...all masked under "freedom". Freedom? Been to a college campus lately? Kids can be expelled for being non-PC.
I don't care what you believe as long as you respect what others believe and don't attempt to make them justify their beliefs...that includes threads such as these.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
I don't see the value of this thread, but as its still civil it will remain open for the nonce.
However, I do believe RKBA is indeed an issue that enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The reason the liberals are so successful is that they are so promiscuously accepting of anything contrary to conservative, restraint, common courtesy and decency...all masked under "freedom". Freedom? Been to a college campus lately? Kids can be expelled for being non-PC.
I don't care what you believe as long as you respect what others believe and don't attempt to make them justify their beliefs...that includes threads such as these.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Ed said:
>>Rik: Let me tell you why I disagree.The hereafter either is or it isnt.If it is, Who can say with certainty that it is secular or ecumenical or restricted in any way?<<
If it is not restricted in any way, Pascal's Wager still fails because the nonbelievers still go to the same place no matter how they believe.
>>And strictly speaking there is no proof that humans are related in any way to apes. There is a strong supposition based on similarities,but there are a lot of differences too.<<
There is more than strong supposition, there is direct evidence, which even the Pope accepts.
>> Are you asking that I accept your hypothesis on faith?<<
It is a theory, not a hypothesis, it is not "my" theory OR hypothesis but the one supported by the evidence and no, I ask you acccept the scientific evidence that supports it, which requires no faith.
>>Rik: Let me tell you why I disagree.The hereafter either is or it isnt.If it is, Who can say with certainty that it is secular or ecumenical or restricted in any way?<<
If it is not restricted in any way, Pascal's Wager still fails because the nonbelievers still go to the same place no matter how they believe.
>>And strictly speaking there is no proof that humans are related in any way to apes. There is a strong supposition based on similarities,but there are a lot of differences too.<<
There is more than strong supposition, there is direct evidence, which even the Pope accepts.
>> Are you asking that I accept your hypothesis on faith?<<
It is a theory, not a hypothesis, it is not "my" theory OR hypothesis but the one supported by the evidence and no, I ask you acccept the scientific evidence that supports it, which requires no faith.
Longhair said:
>>And as far as I have seen, the monkey theory, is just that, theory.<<
Mocking it won't make it false. And saying it is "just" a theory shows an ignorance of the scientific definition of the word "theory." Evolution is a fact. How it occurred exactly is the part being theorized about---just as gravity is a fact, but why it happens is the theory of gravity.
>>And as far as I have seen, the monkey theory, is just that, theory.<<
Mocking it won't make it false. And saying it is "just" a theory shows an ignorance of the scientific definition of the word "theory." Evolution is a fact. How it occurred exactly is the part being theorized about---just as gravity is a fact, but why it happens is the theory of gravity.
Ed Brunner
New member
Rik: Im still not convinced. I dont accept the Big Bang theory either.My reanoning is that neither theory can refute Divine Creation as the cause of it all.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
I dunno, after too many years of having evolution shoved down my throat as a biology major, there are just too many things that one has to take on faith to believe in the theory of evolution. I find that believing in divine creation takes a lot less faith and has a lot less holes. Try reading "The Black Box" by Micheal Behe. It is a very biochemical approach to why evolution is impossible. I could explain the book, but it is better to read it if you understand biochemistry and physiology pretty well. Or, try reading any of Hugh Ross's books for some lighter reading on the topic. This is not the forum for the subject, but I have studied a whole lot of evolutional theory, and the holes in it are too numerous to list and I am not going to be lured into an out of line discussion on it because I have BTDT and it profits nothing. Study it for yourself and make your own decisions, but just be sure to read both side of the issue (I have listed some good reading above). It takes faith that the holes in evolution will be patched up in the future, just like the first evolutionists had faith that their little theory would be proven correct when it was just beginning. There are still many huge holes in evolutionary theory, they just are smaller than they were 100 years ago, and some of them have ridiculous explanations. Believing in the scientific approach to evolutionary creation takes a lot of faith in science that they will someday really find out that they are right. I don't have enough faith to overlook those holes in the meantime. The nice thing is, when we die, we will all know the truth, whatever that may be. Call me a wimp, but I would rather embrace a divine creator and be wrong, than to snub my nose at him and find out I was mistaken 
Ed said:
>>Rik: Im still not convinced. I dont accept the Big Bang theory either.My reanoning is that neither theory can refute Divine Creation as the cause of it all.<<
Ed, your logic is a bit cloudy. Neither the Big Bang, nor evolution have ANYTHING to do with divine creation. Scientific theories describe HOW something happens, not for what purpose. You can believe to your heart's content that there is an all powerful God who caused the Big Bang or caused humans to evolve, and no one can say with any certainty that you're wrong.
But humans DID evolve, whether some God was responsible or not.
>>Rik: Im still not convinced. I dont accept the Big Bang theory either.My reanoning is that neither theory can refute Divine Creation as the cause of it all.<<
Ed, your logic is a bit cloudy. Neither the Big Bang, nor evolution have ANYTHING to do with divine creation. Scientific theories describe HOW something happens, not for what purpose. You can believe to your heart's content that there is an all powerful God who caused the Big Bang or caused humans to evolve, and no one can say with any certainty that you're wrong.
But humans DID evolve, whether some God was responsible or not.
Thaddeus said:
>>I dunno, after too many years of having evolution shoved down my throat as a biology major, there are just too many things that one has to take on faith to believe in the theory of evolution.<<
Sorry, no, there is nothing that is required to take on faith to accept the reality that life evolves.
>> I find that believing in divine creation takes a lot less faith and has a lot less holes.<<
You make the same mistake Ed does---whether or not a God is behind it, life evolved.
>> Try reading "The Black Box" by Micheal Behe. It is a very biochemical approach to why evolution is impossible. I could explain the book, but it is better to read it if you understand biochemistry and physiology pretty well. Or, try reading any of Hugh Ross's books for some lighter reading on the topic.<<
Sorry, read both those authors and their work is full of logical and scientific errors. They aren't taken seriously by any of the best minds in their fields and it is patently obvious from hearing them lecture and reading their other writings that they both went into this with the mindset of accepting any evidence that would seem to call doubt to current evolutionary theory and rejecting that which supports it.
>> This is not the forum for the subject, but I have studied a whole lot of evolutional theory, and the holes in it are too numerous to list and I am not going to be lured into an out of line discussion on it because I have BTDT and it profits nothing.<<
So basically you're saying you're just going to come make the statement that evolutionary theory is full of holes and then not support it? Sorry, I have studied it quite a bit myself and I disagree. Guess I don't have to say why though, by your rules.
>>Study it for yourself and make your own decisions, but just be sure to read both side of the issue (I have listed some good reading above). It takes faith that the holes in evolution will be patched up in the future, just like the first evolutionists had faith that their little theory would be proven
correct when it was just beginning. There are still many huge holes in evolutionary theory, they just are smaller than they were 100 years ago, and some of them have ridiculous explanations. Believing in the scientific approach to evolutionary creation takes a lot of faith in science that they will someday really find out that they are right. I don't have enough faith to overlook those holes in the meantime.<<
Creationists like to repeat that lie, but it is just that: a lie. Evolutionary biology requires no faith---it has been proven over and over. All modern medicine is based on it and it is observed in action every single day. The "holes" you speak of are simply gaps in some species development, but there is an almost unbroken evolutionary chain that is clearly visible from fossils in many many species---it makes precious little sense to say "Oh, these species evolved, but since we don't have evidence that THIS species evolved, it must be different from all the others." I think you are being a bit disingenuous in your argument.
>> The nice thing is, when we die, we will all know the truth, whatever that may be.<<
Well, in fact that isn't so. If I am right, when you die, you won't know anything at all, ever again, since you will cease to exist. But that has exactly NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution is a fact, whether there is a God or a heaven or an afterlife of any kind and the two things are NOT connected.
>>Call me a wimp, but I would rather embrace a divine creator and be wrong, than to snub my nose at him and find out I was mistaken<<
You also ignore the possibility you are embracing the wrong version of God, and you also are TOTALLY mistaken to equate evolutionary science with atheism or nonbelief. Most professing Christians accept the fact of evolution.
>>I dunno, after too many years of having evolution shoved down my throat as a biology major, there are just too many things that one has to take on faith to believe in the theory of evolution.<<
Sorry, no, there is nothing that is required to take on faith to accept the reality that life evolves.
>> I find that believing in divine creation takes a lot less faith and has a lot less holes.<<
You make the same mistake Ed does---whether or not a God is behind it, life evolved.
>> Try reading "The Black Box" by Micheal Behe. It is a very biochemical approach to why evolution is impossible. I could explain the book, but it is better to read it if you understand biochemistry and physiology pretty well. Or, try reading any of Hugh Ross's books for some lighter reading on the topic.<<
Sorry, read both those authors and their work is full of logical and scientific errors. They aren't taken seriously by any of the best minds in their fields and it is patently obvious from hearing them lecture and reading their other writings that they both went into this with the mindset of accepting any evidence that would seem to call doubt to current evolutionary theory and rejecting that which supports it.
>> This is not the forum for the subject, but I have studied a whole lot of evolutional theory, and the holes in it are too numerous to list and I am not going to be lured into an out of line discussion on it because I have BTDT and it profits nothing.<<
So basically you're saying you're just going to come make the statement that evolutionary theory is full of holes and then not support it? Sorry, I have studied it quite a bit myself and I disagree. Guess I don't have to say why though, by your rules.
>>Study it for yourself and make your own decisions, but just be sure to read both side of the issue (I have listed some good reading above). It takes faith that the holes in evolution will be patched up in the future, just like the first evolutionists had faith that their little theory would be proven
correct when it was just beginning. There are still many huge holes in evolutionary theory, they just are smaller than they were 100 years ago, and some of them have ridiculous explanations. Believing in the scientific approach to evolutionary creation takes a lot of faith in science that they will someday really find out that they are right. I don't have enough faith to overlook those holes in the meantime.<<
Creationists like to repeat that lie, but it is just that: a lie. Evolutionary biology requires no faith---it has been proven over and over. All modern medicine is based on it and it is observed in action every single day. The "holes" you speak of are simply gaps in some species development, but there is an almost unbroken evolutionary chain that is clearly visible from fossils in many many species---it makes precious little sense to say "Oh, these species evolved, but since we don't have evidence that THIS species evolved, it must be different from all the others." I think you are being a bit disingenuous in your argument.
>> The nice thing is, when we die, we will all know the truth, whatever that may be.<<
Well, in fact that isn't so. If I am right, when you die, you won't know anything at all, ever again, since you will cease to exist. But that has exactly NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution is a fact, whether there is a God or a heaven or an afterlife of any kind and the two things are NOT connected.
>>Call me a wimp, but I would rather embrace a divine creator and be wrong, than to snub my nose at him and find out I was mistaken<<
You also ignore the possibility you are embracing the wrong version of God, and you also are TOTALLY mistaken to equate evolutionary science with atheism or nonbelief. Most professing Christians accept the fact of evolution.
Why the incessant insistence on the acceptance of evolutionary theory? In the setting of this forum, it means nothing and has no relevance.
To be frank, I question the motives for continuing this discussion. Most of the members here have little formal training in the biological sciences, thus whether they believe or disbelieve evolutionary theory has no import on their professions, daily lives or emotional tranquility.
I haven't, nor won't voice my religious or lack of religious beliefs...however, with graduate degrees in molecular biology and biochemistry I am well aquainted with evolution, and I still see no relevance here
TFL has stopped Christians from proselytizing and in the interest of fairness and balance I'm locking this thread.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
To be frank, I question the motives for continuing this discussion. Most of the members here have little formal training in the biological sciences, thus whether they believe or disbelieve evolutionary theory has no import on their professions, daily lives or emotional tranquility.
I haven't, nor won't voice my religious or lack of religious beliefs...however, with graduate degrees in molecular biology and biochemistry I am well aquainted with evolution, and I still see no relevance here
TFL has stopped Christians from proselytizing and in the interest of fairness and balance I'm locking this thread.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
- Status