The twentieth century’s eugenics movement was eventually discarded, but eugenics did not go away entirely. Today eugenics continues, but it is a much more diverse and technologically sophisticated. There are the so-called eugenic abortions where the unborn with higher disease risks are “terminated.” And today’s technology allows for specific embryos, and even genes, to be selected. There seems to be, as Nathaniel Comfort observed this month, a eugenic impulse that drives us to seek a better human race. Underlying such health concerns, however, are the usual less benevolent motivations. In addition to the promised health benefits, Comfort explains that eugenics offers an intellectual thrill, and the profits of genetic biomedicine. Such lures are, explains Comfort, “too great for us to do otherwise. Resistance would be ill-advised and futile.”
Nonetheless there are those who warn against this new eugenics. Will not parents face enormous pressure to adopt the new technologies and create designer babies? But for eugenics proponent Jon Entine, such complaints are “just another iteration of the anti-abortionist (and far left) belief that life is ‘sacred’ and ‘inviolable’”
“Sacred” and “inviolable”? Apparently for Entine such sentiment is old-fashioned.
Evolution gave us chance origins and led to the modern eugenics and abortion movements. Not surprisingly, life no longer is considered sacred or inviolable. After all, life arose spontaneously from a series of random events.
Ideas have consequences.
Yeah yeah CH, we know:
ReplyDeleteChemistry gave us Zyklon B poisonous gas which the Nazis used in the gas chambers. Therefore chemistry is evil and everything we know about chemistry is wrong.
After three months off I'd have thought you'd come up with some fresh material, but no.
Nice try! Chemistry did not give us Zyklon B poisonous gas. The Nazis did. So obviously if chemistry is not to blame for it, chemistry is not evil.
DeleteAnd no one is arguing that everything we know about evolution is wrong.
But, according to your worldview, absolute morality is simply an illusion so what the Nazis did is not wrong in an absolute sense - in spite of the fact that 99.9% of the people on earth think it is. According to your worldview, they broke no absolute standard so the most you can say is that what they did was "wrong" in the sense that most people disagree with it. Big deal. Wrong then has a totally different meaning when used like that. I suppose if they had won the war, their actions would then have been "right" since they were legal in their culture?
But Cornelius is right here. Ideas do have consequences and you obviously must realize. Beliefs normally affect and guide our actions. The idea that our origin is due to nothing more than chance has implications for how we view life.
There is no absolute morality so anything can be justified and rules can be broken knowing that they aren't absolute so there really is no right and wrong in an absolute sense.
It means that life really has no meaning in the ultimate sense. Oh sure, we all make up a meaning for our personal life, but it is all arbitrary and meaningless.
The idea that life arose spontaneously means that life is not sacred or inviolable. This is a corollary of evolution that cannot be avoided.
Your analogy is faulty and your view that life is not sacred or inviolable is scary! No wonder abortion is welcomed in the atheist community for the most part. And the idea of evolution did lead to eugenics or at least it freed people up to do those kinds of horrors.
Can I ask you, what is there that can prevent something like that happening again if there is no real right or wrong?
tokyojim
DeleteNice try! Chemistry did not give us Zyklon B poisonous gas. The Nazis did. So obviously if chemistry is not to blame for it, chemistry is not evil.
The theory of evolution that CH keeps attacking did not give us eugenics or abortions. Humans acting on society's mores did. So obviously since evolution is not to blame, tying evolution to those two actions doesn't make evolution wrong.
Wasn't eugenics based on natural selection which is part of evolution? Didn't Darwin himself write about eugenics?
DeleteAnd wasn't recapitulation theory used to justify abortion? The argument was that the embryo is just a fish.
DeleteThat's true Thorton, but the philosophical implications of the theory lead quite nicely and naturally to such ideas as abortion and even eugenics. Why? Because it teaches us that life is not valuable and has no inherent meaning. If that is true, then there is no reason that abortion would be wrong or even that eugenics is wrong. It is also the reason that even today the topic of eugenics is not a dead issue. Peter Singer speaks of infanticide as being moral. In fact, there is no reason why murder itself would be wrong in a real moral sense because there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong in your worldview. What is the difference between killing a baby still in the womb or killing it 10 minutes later after it is born? Animals kill each other all the time, but no one arrests them or accuses them of immoral behavior. Murder is natural in the animal world and if we are just evolved animals, ideas of right and wrong are simply arbitrary man-made rules that can be changed at will. Theoretically there could be a society where murder, rape, or even child torture could be moral.
DeleteWhen we apply the "truths" of evolution to life, abortion and eugenics are a natural outcome and cannot be considered immoral at all. If you teach there is no God, then the result of that is that there is no absolute right or wrong. This has implications for society and how people behave, or at least might potentially choose to behave.
Ideas do have consequences. This is all Cornelius is saying.
Are you going to claim that ideas do NOT have consequences?
tokyojim
DeleteThat's true Thorton, but the philosophical implications of the theory lead quite nicely and naturally to such ideas as abortion and even eugenics. Why? Because it teaches us that life is not valuable and has no inherent meaning.
Wrong. The theory of evolution doesn't teach that life is not valuable and has no inherent meaning. ToE doesn't say anything at all about life's value or meaning. ToE simply describes the working of the natural world. People with agendas are the ones who tack on value judgements later.
Murder is natural in the animal world and if we are just evolved animals, ideas of right and wrong are simply arbitrary man-made rules that can be changed at will.
Wrong again. Social species such as humans have evolved complex social behaviors such as altruism, behaviors that overall help the species survive. The stupid strawman argument "evolution says can't have morals" is just that, a stupid strawman.
Ideas do have consequences. This is all Cornelius is saying.
The idea that someone may use or misuse a scientific theory to justify other actions may have consequences. However, those actions don't affect the veracity of the scientific theory one iota.
thorton:
DeleteSocial species such as humans have evolved complex social behaviors such as altruism, behaviors that overall help the species survive.
Nice bald assertion and equivocation.
Unfortunately there isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can account for social species, let alone their behaviour.
There isn't even any way to test the claim- it's all woo-woo. And that is why evolutionism is not a scientific theory.
natschuster November 29, 2012 6:05 PM
DeleteWasn't eugenics based on natural selection which is part of evolution? Didn't Darwin himself write about eugenics?
The concept of natural selection was derived from knowledge of artificial selection - of how humans had successfully bred other animals for specific purposes over hundreds of years.
Shouldn't we blame eugenics on agriculture?
Ian H Spedding
DeleteShouldn't we blame eugenics on agriculture?
According to these guys God made eugenicists. That means we need to blame eugenics on God.
Ian H Spedding:
DeletePeople knew about natural selection because they saw things get sick and die. What Darwin did was assert that natural selection could improve species the way that natural selection did.
Anyway, the question wasn't whether evolution should lead to eugenics, but whether it has lead to eugenics. I do believe that it has.
natschuster December 1, 2012 3:05 PM
DeleteIan H Spedding:
People knew about natural selection because they saw things get sick and die. What Darwin did was assert that natural selection could improve species the way that natural selection did.
No, as I said before, people had learnt over hundreds of years that animals could be altered by selective breeding, horses could be made bigger or stronger or that could run faster. That was artificial selection.
Darwin saw that if animals had an inbuilt capacity for change then that should respond to natural pressures as well as man's influences - hence natural selection.
As for improvement, in evolution that only means that an animal has become fitter, meaning better fitted to its environment. For example, an antelope is able to run a bit faster than other antelope as a result of a random mutation. As a result, it stands a better chance of outrunning predators and surviving long enough to pass on its lucky mutation. Thus, that anelope is better fitted to its environment than the others.
Anyway, the question wasn't whether evolution should lead to eugenics, but whether it has lead to eugenics. I do believe that it has.
Okay, so the theory of evolution led to eugenics. Does that say anything about whether the theory is right or wrong. Christianity led to the Spanish Inquisition. Does that mean that Christianity is totally wrong?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete....After three months off I'd have....
ReplyDeleteHas it been three months? Time flies. Tempus fugit-memento mori
....eugenic impulse that drives us to seek a better human race...
It's too late for me :)
We could be looking down into the perfect storm of eugenics coming at us. This goes beyond the evolution/creation debate into something grisly out of a sci-fi novel.... The convergence of abortion on demand, government controlled healthcare, massive and unsustainable debt, and technology.
ReplyDeleteAn acquintance shared with me that he and his wife chose to have an abortion after a test showed their baby had downs syndrome. They found out later (too late) that the test was inaccurate (the baby did not have downs). So, in this case, the technology encouraged the death of a baby and left two parents who will carry this burden forever.
We should not play God and that is what eugenics is. I want the technology to go towards helping the unborn, not picking who lives or not. On this one, I really hope I'm wrong about the perfect storm.
Dr. Hunter, You may appreciate this very informative video:
ReplyDeleteThe Descent of Darwin - Pastor Joe Boot (Philosophical underpinnings of Darwinism) - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJqk7xF4-g
Abortions are performed for a number of reasons and it doesn't help to oversimplify the situation.
ReplyDeleteAs for this group of medical ethicists, they are entitled to argue their case but I completely disagree with them. As I have said before, the right to life should extend from conception to death. I can see no good reason to link it to something as nebulous as personhood and I doubt if this group has provided one.
thorton:
ReplyDeleteThe theory of evolution that CH keeps attacking did not give us eugenics or abortions.
No it just removed all purpose and meaning from our lives. It also made it so that our laws are also meaningless and petty. It made so there isn't any evil in the world and that anything goes.
That's why you started experimenting on tics and watermelons, Joe? Makes total sense. It's Darwin's fault! So, so sorry.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOh, don't be shy, Joe. You shared your experience with ticks and watermelons right on this here blog.
DeleteJuicy details (hehehe).
DeleteSo I was NOT experimenting with tics and watermelon. And what I did had absolutely NOTHING to do with Darwin/ evolutionism.
DeleteYou do realize that putting watermelon rinds in the woods does not amount to experimenting with tics and watermelon- or are you just a clueless jerk?
To clarify-
DeletePutting watermelon rinds in the woods is an experiment (a let's do this and se what happens type of experment) with watermelon rinds (in the woods). The tics coming to the watermelon rinds was an unexpected result.
And I still don't understand what the big deal about that is. As far as I can tell science is replete with unexpected results. That is one way we increase our knowledge- find something unexpected and explore it.
But anyway, there you have it...
I love the original description of the watermelon experiment.
DeleteI threw some watermelon rinds (with some fesh still on) into the woods across the street from my house.
I can just sense thoughtful planning and careful preparation. Keep it up, Joe.
Yes, the thoughtful planning was not wanting to fill up my trash container with easily biodegradable fruit pieces. And I knew there were creepy-crawlies that would enjoy the treat.
DeleteTrue, the placement was somewhat random, but that is what you get with that type of experiment.
And I love the way oleg just ignores what I post and prattles on like an infant...
Tell us the one about how you "experimented" with drinking hydrogen peroxide. That's always good for a laugh.
DeleteI still drink it- diluted food grade hydrogen peroxide. It's made for consumption ya know.
DeleteNo flu, no flu shots
Joe G
DeleteNo flu, no flu shots
No brain, no headaches. Whatever floats yer boat.
Typical cowardly non-sequitur
DeleteHey, that's a new one for me. Drinking hydrogen peroxide prevents flu?
DeleteYes, go the the local store, pick up any ole bottle of HP, down it and you will never get the flu again.
DeleteOf course you will be dead but no one will know the difference.
So oleg can't stand the fact that his position removes all purpose and meaning from our lives and so he has to try the typical distraction tactic...
ReplyDeleteJoe G
ReplyDeleteSo oleg can't stand the fact that his position removes all purpose and meaning from our lives and so he has to try the typical distraction tactic...
Poor clueless Joe. Scientific theories neither add nor remove purpose and meaning from our lives. Scientific theories are merely tools to describe and understand the natural world.
Don't blame science just because your personal laziness and willful ignorance created a terrible life for yourself.
thorton, you dolt-
ReplyDeleteIt isn't about any scientific theory, because it isn't a scientific theory.
The FACT is if we are here via accumulations of genetic accidents- IOW if your position is correct- then there isn't any purpose nor meaning to our lives- that is other than to survive and reproduce.
Joe G
ReplyDeleteThe FACT is if we are here via accumulations of genetic accidents- IOW if your position is correct- then there isn't any purpose nor meaning to our lives- that is other than to survive and reproduce.
Like I said Joe, don't blame science just because your personal laziness and willful ignorance created a terrible life for yourself.
Science didn't make you into a morbidly obese loser with no discernible scientific skills or knowledge. You did.
Umm, as I said I am NOT blaming science for anything. So either you are totally ignorant or just a pathological lying coward.
DeleteAnd it just so happens that you have been proven to be both ignorant and a pathological lying coward. That's science...
Don't worry Joe. Regardless of the correctness of the ToE, your purpose and meaning in life is to deliver weapons-grade tard to entertain the reaity-based community. Hehehe.
ReplyDeleteAnd another clueless reject chimes in.
DeleteSo Joe, what religion are you claiming to be this week? Did your new-found infatuation with reincarnation make you into a Buddhist?
DeleteStrange, I never claimed to be of any religion. And I have understood reincarnation since the 70s. But I have never been infatuated with it. It is what it is.
DeleteStrange, nothing there says that I claimed to be of any religion.
DeleteAre you ignorant, oleg? If you don't think you are then please, make your case that I claimed to be of any religion.
Joe G
DeleteHINT: "Muslim" is NOT a religion
Why did you claim to be a "Muslim who is not a follower of the Nation of Islam" then?
What kind of Muslim is that?
Joe G: "Muslim" is NOT a religion. One can be a Muslim without being a follower of Islam.
DeleteEnglish dictionary: Muslim: A follower of the religion of Islam.
Bonus question, Joe. Can one be a Christian without following Christ?
Maybe by some nonsensical definition. But it ain't the definition that Muslims use. I prefer to go with the people that actually know what something is.
DeleteBut anyway, there are people who call themselves Christians that do not follow Christ.
BTW the Clerics told me I was a Muslim when I told them that even as a Christian I did not accept the trinity. And I definitely was not a follower of Islam.
Here is a definition that Muslims use.
DeleteWho is a Muslim?
In very simple terms a Muslim is a follower of Islam. The word "Muslim" means one who submits to the will of God. This is done by declaring that "there is no god except one God and Muhammad is the messenger of God." In a broader sense, anyone who willingly submits to the will of God is a Muslim.
Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D.
President
Islamic Research Foundation International
Whatever, by that definition I was never a Muslim and you still have nothing.
DeleteWhat I posted was posted under the premise that the Muslim Clerics and all the Muslims I have talked to, actually know what they are talking about.
Wow, Abraham was a Muslim BEFORE ISLAM EVEN EXISTED.
DeleteGo figure...
So, Joe, do I take it that "the Muslim Clerics and all the Muslims [you] have talked to" actually do not know what they are talking about? Are you sure?
DeleteAnd which definition of Muslim did you use? You never gave it.
Deleteoleg,
DeleteYour link contradicts itself as it says that Abraham was a Muslim and he lived many years BEFORE Islam arose.
Therefor a Muslim does not have to be a follower of Islam.
oleg-
DeleteOut of one side of your mouth you say a Muslim is a follower of Islam. Islam did not exist in the time of Abraham.
Also a Christian worships the same God. Judaism- same God- Abraham was the father of all three. Jesus was a Muslim. Newton, a Unitarian, was a Muslim. Neither was a follower of Islam.
BTW how can one worship the God of the Qu'ran if the Qu'ran doesn't exist?
And you don't have to worship- at least according to YOUR reference.
These issues are irrelevant since you clearly used a different, non-standard definition of Muslim. What was it?
DeleteThese issues demonstrate that the alleged standard definition is wrong. Deal with that first and perhaps we can proceed.
DeleteSuppose—for the sake of the argument—that the standard definition is wrong. What definition did you use?
DeleteWhy suppose when we have everything we need right in your reference?
DeleteAbraham could NOT be a follower of Islam because Islam did not yet exist. Yet YOUR SOURCE says that Abraham was a Muslim.
What religion did Abraham practice?
These issues are mildly interesting to someone who is a novice in Abrahamic religions (of which Islam is part), but they are irrelevant to the question I asked: Which definition of Islam did you use? It clearly wasn't the standard definition. What was it?
DeleteThe issues demonstrate that the alleged standard definition is nonsense. So why would anyone use it?
DeleteIf you knew that a definition was wrong would you tell your students to use it?
First step oleg, admit that, wrt the word "Muslim", the standard definition is wrong.
DeleteAre you man enough to do that?
I do not think the standard definition is wrong. I explained why. Everyone uses it, except you, apparently.
DeleteBut it does not matter whether the standard definition is consistent or not. What matters is the fact that you used a different definition. Thus we have no idea what you meant by presenting yourself as a Muslim.
So, for the umpteenth time. What definition of the word Muslim did you use?
Really. Interesting. We have a definition that is clearly violated by the facts and oleg is OK with that.
DeleteSuffice it to say I did NOT use that definition, oleg.
From oleg's link:
Delete(1) From the Glorious Quran, extracts showing that belief in God and His messenger makes a person a 'Muslim'
With changes:
From the Glorious Quran, extracts showing that acceptance of the One True God and His messengers makes a person a 'Muslim' (Muhammed was not the only messenger)
Joe G: Suffice it to say I did NOT use that definition, oleg.
DeleteIt doesn't. We still had no idea what you meant because you refuse to explain what definition you used.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI wonder how the radical Islamic sects would feel about Joe blaspheming their Prophet so badly?
DeleteIn what way did I blaspheme? Please be specific.
Deleteoleg:
DeleteWe still had no idea what you meant because you refuse to explain what definition you used.
From oleg's link:
(1) From the Glorious Quran, extracts showing that belief in God and His messenger makes a person a 'Muslim'
With changes:
The acceptance of the One True God and His messengers makes a person a 'Muslim'
I asked: Which definition of Islam did you use?
DeleteI am not using any definition of "Islam". Your anger has you confused, again.
I suppose it doesn't matter because you were lying about being a Muslim anyway just to hide the fact you're really a YEC.
DeleteCan't answer a question straight, Joe? I've asked it, like, 6 times. Once more:
DeleteWhat is your definition of Muslim?
oleg,
DeleteAre you retarded? You must be because I have answered your question TWICE.
And thorton is trying to hide the fact that he is infatuated with little boys.
And BTW it is NOT "my" definition- just so we are clear.
DeleteBut thorton is still infatuated with little boys
Joe,
DeleteYou wrote that you hadn't used the standard definition, but you never explained which definition (yours or anyone else's) you had used. So stop being evasive and give that definition.
I posted the definition I was told, TWICE.
DeleteSo I am having a meltdown because thorton is infatuated with little boys?
DeleteHow does that work, exactly?
Melting down is all you do Chubs.
DeleteI noticed you posted this on your own blog
Joe G: "Moooo mooo, asshat. Rich thinks his mother is a sperm bank so he makes daily deposits."
Sure looks like a meltdown to me. Is that how Dr. Hunter should run his blog, the classy way you run yours?
Dr Hunter should prevent people like you and Richie from posting their belligerent spewage. Then there wouldn't be any nasty responses because there wouldn't be any lowlife posts to respond to.
DeleteSo go back to the mall's bathrooms and find yourself a mate
More of Joe G's greatest hits
DeleteJoe G: "So Alan has told the assholes on atbc to stop being retarded? Or are you still a little ignorant faggot?"
Stay classy Joe!
The truth hurts, especially when it pertains to thorton and its ilk
DeleteWhere is that definition? Link to the comment. Or just copy and paste it.
DeleteThere is no definition here that is not the same as the standard one. You have clammed up because we caught you lying.
DeleteIt works like this, Joe. You said that you did not use the standard definition of Muslim and then said that again.
DeleteOK, we get it. You do not think the standard definition is valid. Bu that is completely irrelevant: you did not use the standard definition, so clearly you meant something else. What exactly? You don't say. You just can't define what you mean by Muslim.
Is this clear or do you need further explanations? :)
oleg- I DID say- TWICE. The last time was @ 11:57 AM
DeleteStop blaming me because you are too stupid to follow along.
At 11:57 am you wrote: The acceptance of the One True God and His messengers makes a person a 'Muslim'
DeleteThat is well within the standard definition of Muslim.
Try again.
No, it isn't well within the standard definition. You are either ignorant, just plain stupid or a pathetic liar.
DeletePerhaps all three...
English dictionary: Muslim: A follower of the religion of Islam.
DeleteThe acceptance of the One True God and His messengers makes a person a 'Muslim'
Only a lowlife touch-hole could say that the second definition is well within the first. And here we have oleg....
Of course it is within the standard definition. You have merely paraphrased it without changing the meaning.
DeleteFor example, you have changed "belief in God" to "acceptance of the One True God." If you look through the page I linked, you will find there similar variant that says a Muslim "accepts the supreme power of God." So your paraphrase stays well within the standard, orthodox definition.
Back to the drawing board, Joe. :)
oleg- you are changing the standard definition. The definition I use doesn't say anything about the religion Islam. The definition I use doesn't say anything about being a follower of Islam.
DeleteBut yes, I know the definition I use is the standard definition. I also know that it does not mean I am a follower of Islam. I know the definition I use has nothing to do with any religion.
So pound sand, loser.
Does that mean that (by the definition you use) you accept the One True God. Is that right?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt meant that when it was written. I may not have written it. And I also accept the Sun will rise tomorrow.
DeleteDoesn't make it a religion,. But please I am entertained by your desperation, so continue to flail away...
Joe G: It meant that when I wrote it.
DeleteThat was a remarkable confession! Thank you, my friend.
And how, pray tell, accepting the One True God is not a religious point of view? Huh?
DeleteWhat RELIGION, oleg? This is all about a RELIGION.
DeleteOr are you too stupid to follow along?
Oops, we already know that you are.
And no oleg, I realized that i may not have written it. But seeing that you are so desperate you can read into that whatever your little bitty mind desires.
DeleteAll of a sudden, Joe realizes that he may not have written that! Even though at the time he meant that!
DeleteNot what I said you desperate housewife. Keep flailing away though.
And I still wonder how accepting the One True God is not a religion.
Wonder all you want. Make your case and don't blame me because you are too stupid and coawrdly to do so.
So AGAIN I will ask, what religion, oleg? Please be specific.
So, Joe, in 2005 you accepted the One True God, but you would not yourself religious at that time. Is that a fair summary?
Deletetypos: you would not describe yourself as religious at that time
DeleteWhich religion, you ask? One of the monotheistic ones, I suppose. Likely one of the three Abrahamic faiths. But I don't know. You tell us what you meant by the One True God.
DeleteJoe, how is accepting the One True God not a religious point of view?
DeleteIt is clearly not a point of view of an atheist. Neither that of an agnostic. Even a deist would not accept the One True God. What else remains? Theism, and not just theism, but monotheism.
DeleteDo you understand what monotheism is, Joe?
Joe, how is accepting the One True God not a religious point of view?
DeleteWhat does that have to do with what I said?
Strange, I never claimed to be of any religion.
Those be the words that got you all hot and bothered. So what does your current question have to do with what started you running around like a chicken with its head twisted off?
And do you even know what religion is?
If we define religion as a set of beliefs, then your position is a religion, oleg.
DeleteYou lose, again...
Oh, yes, I understand what a religion is. It is belief in a superhuman controlling power such as a personal God. That's how a dictionary defines it. What is your definition?
DeleteAnd according to my definition, someone who accepts the One and True God is a religious person. In fact, I can even determine that this person adheres to a particular, monotheistic type of religion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNo dictionary defines religion just as "a set of beliefs." The definition invariably stipulates beliefs in a supernatural being or beings. Therefore my beliefs (whatever they are) don't make me a religious person.
DeleteOn the other hand, someone who believes in the existence of "the One True God" is not just a theist, but a religious person. Why? Someone who believes in one god is a monotheist. But the word "true" takes you one step further and makes the belief a religion.
So be careful with words, Joe.
And oleg, I am very careful with my words. I choose them so I can trip up ignorant fools, and here you are tripping all over yourself.
DeleteYou are looking at the wrong definition.
DeleteFrom Merriam-Webster,religion is defined first as follows:
1a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion)
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
My definition is in the sense 1(b) and partly 2.
You have chosen to omit these and skip to number 4, which describes religion as understood in a figurative sense. When someone is said to religiously hold to his beliefs, we merely compare him jokingly to a person who is religious in the senses 1 and 2.
A to your last point, it is irrelevant. You accepted the One True God and now you are trying to get off on some technicalities. But technicalities aren't your thing, Joe. Stick with the basics and don't make us laugh.
So oleg has been proven ignorant of what religion is and his buddy Dr Hunter has deleted all the comments that prove oleg is ignorant.
DeleteHow quaint...
definition 1:
Deletea set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of the universe, usu. involving belief in a supernatural creator and offering guidance in ethics and morals.
Defintion 1- you lose, again, oleg
But don't worry Dr Hunter will delete all posts that prove your ignorance.
Good morning, Joe. Did you notice the words "usu. involving belief in a supernatural creator"? That's who the One and True God is.
DeleteYes oleg and I explained that last night.
DeleteUsually does not mean all the time. Usually means it does not have to be that way.
Do you think that your ignorance means something? Really?
Oleg Tchernyshyov, Ignorant of Religion
Deleteoleg:
DeleteYou accepted the One True God...
Yup and accepting the One True God does not make it a religion by any definition. Not even the simpleton definitions that you choose to use.
You've got it backwards, Joe.
DeleteThe widely accepted definition says that religion usually involves God. There are exceptions—religions that don't involve God or gods. Buddhism does not have a creator god, for instance. So I can't conclude that someone who is religious must accept the One True God.
But I am not saying that. I make the reverse claim: someone who accepts the One True God is religious. Do you understand the difference between the two claims?
Just in case it might help (I know it most likely won't), here is a formal way to approach it:
(A, therefore B) is a direct statement.
(B, therefore A) is its converse.
The definition you have given indicates that the direct statement is not always true (not all religious people believe in One True God). But I was not arguing the direct statement. Instead, I was arguing its converse (believers in One True God are religious). Disproving a direct statement does not disprove the converse.
Hope this helps. :)
oleg:
DeleteThe widely accepted definition says that religion usually involves God.
That's false and I provided a reference that says it is false.
But I was not arguing the direct statement. Instead, I was arguing its converse (believers in One True God are religious).
And I provided a reference that says that is false.
Again just because you can be an ignorant cry-baby doesn't mean you have actually done something.
The site I linked to is What is Religion?.
You can see why oleg ignored it-> it exposed his ignorance on the subject:
Belief in the supernatural, especially gods, is one of the most obvious characteristics of religion. It’s so common, in fact, that some people mistake mere theism for religion itself; yet that is incorrect. Theism can occur outside of religion and some religions are atheistic. Despite this, supernatural beliefs are a common and fundamental aspect to most religions, while the existence of supernatural beings is almost never stipulated in non-religious belief systems.
See belief in a God does not make it a religion. And a religion does not require any Gods at all. And the article tells you why simplistic definitions just don't cut it. Oleg didn't grasp any of that and prattled on as if his ignorance trumps reality.
So if a belief in a God doesn't make it a religion then the acceptance of the One True God doesn't make it a religion.
Give me an example of a non-religious theist.
DeleteAny theist that does not adhere to all of the other characteristics of religion, duh.
DeleteAs I said you are a simpleton if you think that any one dictionary definition is the catch-all definition for religion. And it is shocking that someone who claims to be a scientist would cling to such simpleton definitions.
As I said oleg, you are ignorant of religion. I tried to help you but you ignored the reference because you really think that your willful ignorance trumps reality.
DeleteOne example, Joe? :)
DeleteAny theist that does not adhere to all of the other characteristics of religion, duh.
DeleteFor example- me
BTW oleg:
DeleteAny theist that does not adhere to all of the other characteristics of religion, duh.
Is an example
The latter is not an example. It is a hypothetical.
DeleteYou don't qualify as an example because we need an example to establish a claim about you. That would be circular logic.
But we have established something already. Joe G is a theist. Or at least he was in 2005. Yay!
oleg:
DeleteThe latter is not an example. It is a hypothetical.
No, it's a reality or else they wouldn't have included it in the definition.
But we have established something already.
Yes, that you are a cry-baby who can't man-up and admit he was wrong and set off on a wild-goose chase of your making.
Joe G, so ashamed to be a YEC he has to lie about it.
Deletethorton, so upset that he is an ignorant punk, has to lie about other people to make himself feel good
DeleteAnd troy, I don't worry because I know your position is total nonsense and meaningless. That means it doesn't have any bearing on the reality-based community. hehehe
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of infatuation- thorton, how long have you been infatuated with little boys? Is a new-found infatuation or a long-standing infatuation?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteDon't be embarrassed, just answer the questions.
DeleteI meant that Richie, like you, is a coward, a liar and a loser.
DeleteYou do realize that I don't need any more evidence for that...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBTW thorton- do you know what I have from you that is in my spam folder?
ReplyDeleteStop being such a lowlife hypocrite...
Yes, my wife and daughter approve of me talking like that to you, and people like you. They would actually prefer that I just rip your head off but you are too much of a coward to face me.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteJoe makes Thorton's point for him.
ReplyDeleteJoe, remember your Islamic teachings!
"Creationists come in many denominations. I happen to be a Muslim who is not a follower of the Nation of Islam. I know of Hindu Creationists. Islam, Judaism, and Christiantity all share Abraham and they all share Genesis." - Joe Gallien aka John Paul.
So what teachings did you have. Did you read the Koran and find it true?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete"It will have to be outside. I understand Tweedo's banned you because you were making them lose money on their "all you can eat cheesy breadsticks" deal." - ROFL.
ReplyDeleteJoe G
ReplyDeleteTweedos doesn't have "an all you can eat cheesy breadsticks" deal...
Not any more they don't! Good job ruining a good thing Chubs
No, they never had one. But I understand that you have to lie about other people in order to make yourself feel good.
DeleteGood job I got a screen cap of your deleted posts, dishonest Joe!
ReplyDelete