The enigma called Dawkins
- I believe it was Janet Browne who said that although she had spent a lifetime (poor dear) studying Darwin, he still remained an enigma to her. We could say the same for Richard Dawkins.
Quotes and comments;
1. ‘The universe we observe has … no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.’ [River out of Eden; p.133]
- Here's a man who says there is no such thing as good or evil; but has spent the last 2o years or so telling us all how evil Christians, the bible, God, the church, etc. are. This makes no sense; but somehow he manages not only to get away with this but to prosper. It's a strange approach to take, to say the least.
- None of this makes sense so why does he do it? In summary we can say he's just following the strategy called critical theory. Various intellectuals decided that the best way to destroy something is to subject it to a relentless and radical critique. (e.g. Czarist Russia) In the language of the street, if you throw enough crap at something, some of it will stick. There will always be naive and ignorant people who won't mind or notice that your critique has no internal coherence.
- I get the picture Dawkins has drunk deeply from the culture of critique. He's studied the Frankfurt school and all the rest of civilization wreckers of our time. (He's said nothing people like Adorno didn't say decades before.) He has too much hatred to be an honest scholar; his desire to destroy Christianity makes him incapable of intellectual integrity. And so we get the absurd picture of the nihilist as great moral reformer. It makes no sense; but I suppose that's Richard Dawkins in a nutshell.
- The 'God Delusion' of course is just dipping into Freud's slop bucket (e.g. 'The Future of an Illusion') If Dawkins is really interested in delusions he should read some of Freud's books. These are the greatest collection of delusionary statements ever made in the history of the human race. (e.g. Moses and Monotheism, Totem and Taboo, etc.)
- I've tried to compare this behavior to other things but it's hard to find analogies or similar examples. Let's try a couple.
- Dawkins is a like a snake oil salesman. He might be likened to some professor who writes a book denouncing the fraudsters who sell snake oil at fairs, but then is caught one day operating a stand at the fair where he's selling snake oil. [5.]
- Dawkins is perhaps more like the politician who gives fiery speeches where he celebrates equality and egalitrianism, who denounces the evil rich... but he himself owns a multi-million dollar estate by the river, complete with a bevy of servants. (I'm sure you can think of a few.)
- His hypocrisy is so extreme he can really only be compared to these lying, stealing politicians. The analogy would only hold if some of these pols actually believed what they said. Whether any exist I don't know. (I'm told that such people do exist, and that they defend their very unequal situation by saying they deserve it, or by saying that it helps them fight the good fight or somesuch. All this sounds hard to believe.)
- The kindest thing we can say about him is that he contradicts himself. (Over and over; like a monkey banging on a typewriter :=) One day he reads something by a philosopher and he really does believe there is no good or evil, that these things are only delusions; but the next day he reads a book attacking Christianity and he is consumed with a hatred for it. The man is clearly unstable. He seems to think he can open his big gob and say anything he wants, whether he has any foundation for it in his worldview or not.
- His arguments defy all the rules of logic. To say 'I don't believe in evil... but x is evil' breaks all the rules of logic. There is no way to get from the belief 'there is no evil' to the belief 'x is evil.' There is an unbridgeable chasm between the two. (You certainly can't get there using logic.) No one should take this kind of 'reasoning' seriously. That they apparently do is a riddle.
Notes;
1. It surely makes no sense to complain that matter is pitiless. Only personal agents can show pity. (Dawkins is so enthralled by power of rhetoric that he's continually uttering such logical nonsense.)
2. The fallacy at the heart of the culture of criticism is simple; it has no basis in reality. It has no foundation to stand on. The great critics of our age have no right to criticize anything. They're intellectual beggars, without a penny in their bank accounts. They have no basis for truth, reality, justice, law, rationality, logic, or anything else.
- If man is just matter in motion, and his thoughts are just chemical reactions, and he's just a deluded gene carrying robot he has no basis to make any statements about the world. His own worldview destroys his basis for critique.
3. The self-conscious critics know all this; and they simply don't care. They tell themselves and their comrades, that it isn't about truth, but it's about power. This being the case it doesn't matter if a criticism is valid, it doesn't matter if what you say isn't true. None of this matters they assure each other.
- If you want evidence for this just open up your daily newspaper. The two I get are filled on a daily basis with endless complaints against the culture. Almost every day the cover story is some sob story about how the evil culture (i.e. Christians) are doing evil things to poor helpless people. If you didn't know better, you'd think this was the worst place on earth. [The city I live in is regularly voted one of the top places to live in in the world.] It never (never) stops. It doesn't matter that the people who make these critiques insist man is just a mindless animal. It doesn't matter that they insist that Truth doesn't exist. It doesn't matter that they insist all views are relative. Nothing matters. All that matters is that they endlessly portray Christianity as evil. (The owners of the newspapers are billionaire Marxists if that's of any interest to you.)
- This ownership family has a hatred of Christianity that is wildly irrational. Their papers (written by the clueless products of our Marxist universities) are constantly filled with attacks on Christianity, Christians and anything to do with Creation. They continually celebrate the materialist miracle of evolution. We're continually favored with doxologies about new evolutionary discoveries. Evolution is proved every other day. Praises to Darwin are offered on a weekly basis. (All by people who are utterly ignorant of biology.)
4. The methodology of this critique is simple; hold everyone and everything up to a standard of perfection. Well; since people are finite, fallible and fallen (i.e. imperfect) this is a make work project for the Ages. The hypocrisy of imperfect people holding others up to a standard of perfection is absurdist. The spectacle of people who insist we're all animals, demanding we live like super saints is a farce. This is all a joke. This is intellectual buffoonery.
- One of the great ironies is that the people who demand we all live up to this arbitrary standard of perfection have no basis for determining such a standard. Where would it come from? From their selfish genes? Would it be some excretement from their brains? (The delusions of the Materialist are endless.)
- And of course it's only certain groups who get subjected to this baseless attack. (e.g. the people who write for and publish the Marxist rags we call newspapers never get subjected to such endless acid attacks.)
5. The christian community is full of snake oil salesmen of course. (e.g. John 'the Zionist' Hagee. This is someone I personally find one of the most repellent human beings on the planet. He has associates in his theological circus; Lahaye; Lindsey, Robertson, etc.) How sad it is that the american church is so full of these charlatans. It's virtually impossible to defend Christianity successfully with these deluded and debauched figures parading around the stage. (They totter around like old age strippers trying to augment their pensions.)
6. Self-defense;
- If Christians want to defend themselves against this pagan (what else can we call it?) attack, they can take simple steps. They can; stop buying newspapers by people who hate them; stop supporting the hate mongers in Hollywood; stop watching anti-C. television; stop supporting people who wage war on them, etc. This sounds pretty simple; but few Christians are even doing this much.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Panspermian spaceships from on high
A modern myth is that creationists are biased and that evolutionists are neutral. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Francis Crick is a good example.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Long before he ever discovered DNA’s structure, he held strong atheistic views. The news article1 even reported that Crick’s distaste for ‘religion’ was one of the prime motives that led to his discovery, and also said, ‘The antipathy to religion of the DNA pioneers is long standing. In 1961 Crick resigned as a fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge, when it proposed to build a chapel.’ [1.]
- Do you imagine that a person who would resign from a college because it wanted to build a chapel will tell you the truth about origins?
- Do you believe that someone with a strong antipathy to 'religion' (i.e. Christianity) will tell you the truth about Origins? Do you think they'll reveal their doubts to you? Do you think they'll be above inventing fairy tales to support Materialism? Do you think the sad puddles that slosh their way to committee meetings to force churches to remove crosses will be honest about Origins? Do you believe that people with a strong motivation to disprove 'religion' (i.e. C) will tell you the truth about Origins, about how impossible it is?
- Do you think that someone who would rather believe in 'panspermia' than a creator is going to be honest when he/she talks about origins?
- Do you think people who find the idea of a creator unacceptable are going to be honest about origins?
2. 'Even Crick himself was quoted as saying, ‘An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.’ [1.]
- Why does Crick say 'almost' a miracle. Wouldn't an honest man admit it would have to indeed be a miracle?
3. 'Crick reasoned that life could not have evolved from non-living chemicals under any conceivable earth conditions. But the idea of a creator was unacceptable, since it would go against his atheistic faith. He affirmed this when he said, ‘People like myself get along perfectly well with no religious views.' [1.]
- Crick defines religion as a belief in god, thus saving himself from the notion he too has a religion. But he can't save himself from this; as we all have worldviews.... and his is just different that's all. Prof. Crick is just as finite, fallen and fallible as any of the rest of us. This means he too must believe things on faith. This is the fate of all human beings. Being a professor doesn't allow you to opt out; doesn't allow you to escape this. (No; not even tenure will allow a person to buy their way out of the human predicament :=)
4. 'Crick has refined this idea to directed panspermia. To overcome the huge hurdles of evolution of life from non-living chemicals on earth, Crick proposed, in a book called Life Itself, that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships—by supposedly ‘more evolved’ (therefore advanced) alien beings.' [1.]
- Do you think a person so committed to materialism will be honest about origins?
- In the end this is what it comes to; a creator or aliens. [Science fiction is the 'religion' of atheism if you will; it's a substitute for Christianity.] Materialism can't do the job; as even Crick admits. It's impossible for inert matter to snap its fingers and (presto) become a living organism. The people who honestly believe this (if there are any) believe it only because they don't realize the magnitudes of impossibility that are involved. The more one studies the subject the more one realizes how impossible it is. (Why would inert matter want to be anything more than inert matter? Inert matter has no desires, no wishes :=)
- There's no such thing as 'life' itself. The word life is an abstraction. This isn't a world that has 'life' in it; it's a world full of living organisms. These aliens couldn't have planted 'life' on earth; they could only have planted actual living organisms. That being said (as Bates points out) how could they have known what would happen to those living organisms? (I see no way such an organism could have survived.)
Notes;
1. Designed by aliens? Discoverers of DNA’s structure attack Christianity - article by Gary Bates
2. The official theologian of Panspermia is the late Kurt Vonnegut. ['The big space F*]
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Long before he ever discovered DNA’s structure, he held strong atheistic views. The news article1 even reported that Crick’s distaste for ‘religion’ was one of the prime motives that led to his discovery, and also said, ‘The antipathy to religion of the DNA pioneers is long standing. In 1961 Crick resigned as a fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge, when it proposed to build a chapel.’ [1.]
- Do you imagine that a person who would resign from a college because it wanted to build a chapel will tell you the truth about origins?
- Do you believe that someone with a strong antipathy to 'religion' (i.e. Christianity) will tell you the truth about Origins? Do you think they'll reveal their doubts to you? Do you think they'll be above inventing fairy tales to support Materialism? Do you think the sad puddles that slosh their way to committee meetings to force churches to remove crosses will be honest about Origins? Do you believe that people with a strong motivation to disprove 'religion' (i.e. C) will tell you the truth about Origins, about how impossible it is?
- Do you think that someone who would rather believe in 'panspermia' than a creator is going to be honest when he/she talks about origins?
- Do you think people who find the idea of a creator unacceptable are going to be honest about origins?
2. 'Even Crick himself was quoted as saying, ‘An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.’ [1.]
- Why does Crick say 'almost' a miracle. Wouldn't an honest man admit it would have to indeed be a miracle?
3. 'Crick reasoned that life could not have evolved from non-living chemicals under any conceivable earth conditions. But the idea of a creator was unacceptable, since it would go against his atheistic faith. He affirmed this when he said, ‘People like myself get along perfectly well with no religious views.' [1.]
- Crick defines religion as a belief in god, thus saving himself from the notion he too has a religion. But he can't save himself from this; as we all have worldviews.... and his is just different that's all. Prof. Crick is just as finite, fallen and fallible as any of the rest of us. This means he too must believe things on faith. This is the fate of all human beings. Being a professor doesn't allow you to opt out; doesn't allow you to escape this. (No; not even tenure will allow a person to buy their way out of the human predicament :=)
4. 'Crick has refined this idea to directed panspermia. To overcome the huge hurdles of evolution of life from non-living chemicals on earth, Crick proposed, in a book called Life Itself, that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships—by supposedly ‘more evolved’ (therefore advanced) alien beings.' [1.]
- Do you think a person so committed to materialism will be honest about origins?
- In the end this is what it comes to; a creator or aliens. [Science fiction is the 'religion' of atheism if you will; it's a substitute for Christianity.] Materialism can't do the job; as even Crick admits. It's impossible for inert matter to snap its fingers and (presto) become a living organism. The people who honestly believe this (if there are any) believe it only because they don't realize the magnitudes of impossibility that are involved. The more one studies the subject the more one realizes how impossible it is. (Why would inert matter want to be anything more than inert matter? Inert matter has no desires, no wishes :=)
- There's no such thing as 'life' itself. The word life is an abstraction. This isn't a world that has 'life' in it; it's a world full of living organisms. These aliens couldn't have planted 'life' on earth; they could only have planted actual living organisms. That being said (as Bates points out) how could they have known what would happen to those living organisms? (I see no way such an organism could have survived.)
Notes;
1. Designed by aliens? Discoverers of DNA’s structure attack Christianity - article by Gary Bates
2. The official theologian of Panspermia is the late Kurt Vonnegut. ['The big space F*]
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Is evolution a fact?
Evolutionists say that evolution is a fact. You read and hear this a lot; but what does it mean? The word fact is tossed around as breezily as salad greens but in actuality facts are rare creatures; more rare than spotted owls. (Some philosophers even deny that one of them exists.)
- Our theme for today will be; "what is a fact?"
- If E. is a fact what would this mean? How can we unpack this sentence to get at it's real essence? How can we translate it into logical form?
- Let's try.
a. a fact is a claim that is true
b. evolutionary theory consists of a collection of claims.
c. all claims made by E. theory are claims that are true.
- I think that's accurate. The trouble with it is that I don't see any reason to believe it. In my opinion many claims made by E. theorists are false. (This has often been the case in the past.)
- Claims that contradict each other can't both be true. Many of the claims (propositions) made by E. theorists contradict each other; therefore not all claims made by E. theory are true. If this is true, evolution is Not a fact. (When I say evolution I'm referring to particles to pineapples to professors evolution; so called macro-evolution.)
- When you unpack this bit of bumper sticker rhetoric you see how fallacious it is. (Rhetoric is often a cloak to hide problems; but it is more often a way to smuggle false claims into a debate.)
- If we were to rewrite this claim in a logically true way it would read; 'some claims made by evolutionists are true, and therefore some are false.' Well; we can see why no one writes in a logically honest way :=)
- You can see by the above that the less one knows about E. theory (and about biology, etc.) the easier it is to believe this claim (E. is a fact) is true. (i.e. if you aren't familiar with the theory you won't know how often claims contradict one another.)
- The unfortunate circumstance we find ourselves in is that the Origins debate has been taken over by people who prefer to throw around empty rhetoric and wave placards, than engage in intelligent conversation.
Notes;
1. Several times in the last couple years I've seen people (e.g. Jerry Fodor) admit that natural selection isn't the great engine of information it's long been claimed to be. They admit it can do little or nothing to create new information. How the greatest evidence for E. can be false, but E. still be a fact I don't know. This doesn't stop them from insisting E. is still a fact however. (I think it's more like a weed myself.)
- The materialist has no alternative but to claim E. is a fact. I think this means that like death and taxes, it ain't goin' away.
2. Our theme for today will be; "what is a fact?" (Far more profound than the question, "what is the sound of one hand clapping?")
- Our theme for today will be; "what is a fact?"
- If E. is a fact what would this mean? How can we unpack this sentence to get at it's real essence? How can we translate it into logical form?
- Let's try.
a. a fact is a claim that is true
b. evolutionary theory consists of a collection of claims.
c. all claims made by E. theory are claims that are true.
- I think that's accurate. The trouble with it is that I don't see any reason to believe it. In my opinion many claims made by E. theorists are false. (This has often been the case in the past.)
- Claims that contradict each other can't both be true. Many of the claims (propositions) made by E. theorists contradict each other; therefore not all claims made by E. theory are true. If this is true, evolution is Not a fact. (When I say evolution I'm referring to particles to pineapples to professors evolution; so called macro-evolution.)
- When you unpack this bit of bumper sticker rhetoric you see how fallacious it is. (Rhetoric is often a cloak to hide problems; but it is more often a way to smuggle false claims into a debate.)
- If we were to rewrite this claim in a logically true way it would read; 'some claims made by evolutionists are true, and therefore some are false.' Well; we can see why no one writes in a logically honest way :=)
- You can see by the above that the less one knows about E. theory (and about biology, etc.) the easier it is to believe this claim (E. is a fact) is true. (i.e. if you aren't familiar with the theory you won't know how often claims contradict one another.)
- The unfortunate circumstance we find ourselves in is that the Origins debate has been taken over by people who prefer to throw around empty rhetoric and wave placards, than engage in intelligent conversation.
Notes;
1. Several times in the last couple years I've seen people (e.g. Jerry Fodor) admit that natural selection isn't the great engine of information it's long been claimed to be. They admit it can do little or nothing to create new information. How the greatest evidence for E. can be false, but E. still be a fact I don't know. This doesn't stop them from insisting E. is still a fact however. (I think it's more like a weed myself.)
- The materialist has no alternative but to claim E. is a fact. I think this means that like death and taxes, it ain't goin' away.
2. Our theme for today will be; "what is a fact?" (Far more profound than the question, "what is the sound of one hand clapping?")
Monday, July 6, 2009
Refuting evolution
Is it possible to refute evolution? The answer most people give is no. Although a few people have been bold enough to offer ways this could be done; this is an exceedingly small group, and the tests offered can be listed on one hand.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Various Darwinists have proposed tests which could refute evolution. For example, Darwin said that an example of truly altruistic behaviour would disprove the theory. However, dandelions produce nectar, which benefits insects, but have no need of the visits from the insects because dandelions reproduce asexually. But then the story-telling comes into play to rescue the theory: dandelions originally reproduced sexually so produced nectar for their own benefit but have since lost the need for it.' [1.]
- You can't refute evolutionary theory (in the sense of getting people to admit it's wrong) because you can't 'refute' the wickedness (and contrariness) of the human heart. Every time you knock it down it rises up again. The rebel in man finds it very hard to accept the idea of a creator god. (Why some people are especially hostile to the idea I don't know.)
2. 'Another example: Michael Ruse argues that organisms could not evolve a second time, and if they did, it would refute Darwinism (p. 151).
'But some foraminifera have re-appeared in the fossil record after disappearing, and knowing this, Schafersman says that 'evolution does not assume or require nonrepeatability'. Evolutionary theory is so plastic it can conform to any data.' [1.]
- In my opinion the failure of the origin life experiments to produce anything of note is also a refutation of E. theory. The billions of missing links are also a refutation. [Add the inability to explain the source of new information.] These aren't small problems; they're major refutations of the theory.
- Having said this I don't believe this refutes evolutionary theory in an absolute sense; but I do think it's been conclusively refuted in our day. (It's impossible to know what might happen in the future; but I can't see any way these things can be overturned.)
- If Darwinism was science people would have long ago admitted the theory had been refuted. (At least temporarily; or for the known future) The fact no amount of refutation has the slightest effect on the theory shows that its metaphysical speculation, and not science. Darwinism lives because man's desire to be god lives. Darwinism lives because man's desire to expel god from the universe lives. This will never change. (I can hear the late Tim Buckley, in another context, singing ''this old world will never change...") [3.]
Notes;
1. The Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message Theory - Walter James ReMine; Reviewed by Don Batten
2. Refute;
- 1513, "refuse, reject," from L. refutare "drive back, repress, repel, rebut," from re- "back" + -futare "to beat," probably from PIE base *bhat- "to strike down" (cf. beat). Meaning "prove wrong" dates from 1545. Since c.1964 linguists have frowned on the subtle shift in meaning towards "to deny," as it is used in connection with allegation.
3. Dolphins - Tim Buckley
4. Along these lines you might want to listen to an interview with Cornelius Hunter ('Darwin's Proof') Issues, etc. Archives [August 2003]
- I find Hunter to be one of the most interesting of the Creationists. (Toward the end of the interview he talks about how Evolution theory has become unfalsifiable.)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Various Darwinists have proposed tests which could refute evolution. For example, Darwin said that an example of truly altruistic behaviour would disprove the theory. However, dandelions produce nectar, which benefits insects, but have no need of the visits from the insects because dandelions reproduce asexually. But then the story-telling comes into play to rescue the theory: dandelions originally reproduced sexually so produced nectar for their own benefit but have since lost the need for it.' [1.]
- You can't refute evolutionary theory (in the sense of getting people to admit it's wrong) because you can't 'refute' the wickedness (and contrariness) of the human heart. Every time you knock it down it rises up again. The rebel in man finds it very hard to accept the idea of a creator god. (Why some people are especially hostile to the idea I don't know.)
2. 'Another example: Michael Ruse argues that organisms could not evolve a second time, and if they did, it would refute Darwinism (p. 151).
'But some foraminifera have re-appeared in the fossil record after disappearing, and knowing this, Schafersman says that 'evolution does not assume or require nonrepeatability'. Evolutionary theory is so plastic it can conform to any data.' [1.]
- In my opinion the failure of the origin life experiments to produce anything of note is also a refutation of E. theory. The billions of missing links are also a refutation. [Add the inability to explain the source of new information.] These aren't small problems; they're major refutations of the theory.
- Having said this I don't believe this refutes evolutionary theory in an absolute sense; but I do think it's been conclusively refuted in our day. (It's impossible to know what might happen in the future; but I can't see any way these things can be overturned.)
- If Darwinism was science people would have long ago admitted the theory had been refuted. (At least temporarily; or for the known future) The fact no amount of refutation has the slightest effect on the theory shows that its metaphysical speculation, and not science. Darwinism lives because man's desire to be god lives. Darwinism lives because man's desire to expel god from the universe lives. This will never change. (I can hear the late Tim Buckley, in another context, singing ''this old world will never change...") [3.]
Notes;
1. The Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message Theory - Walter James ReMine; Reviewed by Don Batten
2. Refute;
- 1513, "refuse, reject," from L. refutare "drive back, repress, repel, rebut," from re- "back" + -futare "to beat," probably from PIE base *bhat- "to strike down" (cf. beat). Meaning "prove wrong" dates from 1545. Since c.1964 linguists have frowned on the subtle shift in meaning towards "to deny," as it is used in connection with allegation.
3. Dolphins - Tim Buckley
4. Along these lines you might want to listen to an interview with Cornelius Hunter ('Darwin's Proof') Issues, etc. Archives [August 2003]
- I find Hunter to be one of the most interesting of the Creationists. (Toward the end of the interview he talks about how Evolution theory has become unfalsifiable.)
Friday, July 3, 2009
Darwinists and and their attack on rational discourse
- Rational discourse is only possible if we have (and use) agreed upon definitions of our key terms. We have so little true conversation (among opposing groups) because of the failure to use agreed upon definitions. The people in a society can only have rational discourse if they want it; and sad, many people do not want this. Instead of using words (language) as a source of communication, they use words as weapons in political conflict.
- we see yet another sad example of this in the decision of the Swedish elite to ban creationism in the schools. (This edict doesn't just apply to government run schooling centers, but to private schools as well.)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Creationism and intelligent design are being banned in Swedish schools, reported the English version of the Swedish news source, The Local. Intelligent design (ID) makes no claim about the Creator, but only the detectability of design; nevertheless, both were banned equally.
This may not be unexpected after the Council of Europe resolution last week (10/06/2007). What’s unusual about this decision, though, is that creationism has been banned from church schools – because Sweden, like many European countries, has a state church. “The Swedish government is to crack down on the role religion plays in independent faith schools,” the article began. “Pupils must be protected from all forms of fundamentalism.” [1.]
- I wonder if these people even know what fundamental means.
Fundamental;
1. 'Pertaining to the foundation or basis; serving for the foundation. Hence: Essential, as an element, principle, or law; important; original; elementary; as, a fundamental truth; a fundamental axiom.
- as an aside, Webster's gives the following example; "The fundamental reasons of this war." Shakespeare. [Apropos no?]
- I have further news for these law thumpers; all of us are fundamentalists. I mean by this that all of us have basic presuppositions. (e.g. the basic presuppostion of an atheist is Materialim; the basic presupposition of a Christian is a creator God.) Every person needs a foundation to stand on; and every worldview in turn has a foundation. Despite the patronizing swill spouted by the Swedish elite there is no way around this. (i.e. to denounce someone as a fundamentalist is to have said nothing at all; it's merely to have quacked like a duck.)
- All forms of fundamentalism? Hardly. Nobody could be more of a fundamentalist than the Darwinians of the church of the welfare state. This is just a joke; the term fundamentalist is defined in an arbitrary and self-serving way. To do this is grossly uncivil act. Are 'pupils' being protected from Marxist fundamentalists? Socialist fundamentalists? Atheist fundamentalists? Darwinian fundamentalists? Obviously not.
- what's so pathetic about this is that 'fundamentalism' is a word that has no meaning. The fact that it's given one definition by one group and another by other groups makes rational discourse impossible.
- all this goes back to the Marxist theorist Gramsci, who recommended using language as an attack on capitalists and Christians.
2. 'Most independent schools in Sweden are privately owned but funded by government grants, the article said. Schools that break the rules can be closed by the Swedish National Agency for Education, which is doubling the number of inspectors to ensure compliance.' [same as 1.]
- Isn't it interesting how all this anti-creationism makes jobs for atheists. (One could see it as a make work project.) Of course it's not only anti-creationism that makes for gov. jobs, but the larger project of anti-Christianity. There are literally millions of people employed in actively suppressing Christians, Christianity, and christian rights.
Notes;
1. Sweden Bans Creationism: Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/16/2007
2. It was not for a lack of evidence that Roland Huntford wrote a book on Sweden called the 'New Totalitarians' (available on some p2p sites) That was many years ago [1971] and the situation has just gotten worse. Socialism isn't about compassion, it's about totalitarian domination; it's about an oligarchy governing the populace by tyranny. (All for their own good of course.) It's about treating adults like children; it's about the loss of liberty.
3. to use the same word for different things commits the fallacy of equivocation.
4. Fundamentalist has been made (manufactured) into a term of abuse; when it simply isn't. It's a kind of fake word. Words like fundament, fundamental used to be considered ordinary useful words. The language vandals (guerillas) have destroyed the word, and especially its extension fundamentalist.
- I caution people that there can be no community where words are used as weapons.
5. This whole episode (being perpetrated around the world by the Darwinian elite) is so twisted and stupid it's hard to believe. People have no real freedom if they can't believe as they wish on the matter of Origins.
- how people can insist man is just an animal on the one hand, and then ban teaching on creation is more than I can comprehend. The latter simply doesn't follow from the former. (This isn't an argument, but simply Irrationalism.)
6. Fundamental;
- c.1443, "primary, original, pertaining to a foundation," modeled on L.L. fundamentalis "of the foundation," from L. fundamentum "foundation" (see fundament).
- for those of you who like etymological humor; everyone needs a place to sit.
7. Gramsci's stock has been on a steady climb for decades. (As evidence of this his name gets almost 9 million hits on Yahoo search.
- we see yet another sad example of this in the decision of the Swedish elite to ban creationism in the schools. (This edict doesn't just apply to government run schooling centers, but to private schools as well.)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Creationism and intelligent design are being banned in Swedish schools, reported the English version of the Swedish news source, The Local. Intelligent design (ID) makes no claim about the Creator, but only the detectability of design; nevertheless, both were banned equally.
This may not be unexpected after the Council of Europe resolution last week (10/06/2007). What’s unusual about this decision, though, is that creationism has been banned from church schools – because Sweden, like many European countries, has a state church. “The Swedish government is to crack down on the role religion plays in independent faith schools,” the article began. “Pupils must be protected from all forms of fundamentalism.” [1.]
- I wonder if these people even know what fundamental means.
Fundamental;
1. 'Pertaining to the foundation or basis; serving for the foundation. Hence: Essential, as an element, principle, or law; important; original; elementary; as, a fundamental truth; a fundamental axiom.
- as an aside, Webster's gives the following example; "The fundamental reasons of this war." Shakespeare. [Apropos no?]
- I have further news for these law thumpers; all of us are fundamentalists. I mean by this that all of us have basic presuppositions. (e.g. the basic presuppostion of an atheist is Materialim; the basic presupposition of a Christian is a creator God.) Every person needs a foundation to stand on; and every worldview in turn has a foundation. Despite the patronizing swill spouted by the Swedish elite there is no way around this. (i.e. to denounce someone as a fundamentalist is to have said nothing at all; it's merely to have quacked like a duck.)
- All forms of fundamentalism? Hardly. Nobody could be more of a fundamentalist than the Darwinians of the church of the welfare state. This is just a joke; the term fundamentalist is defined in an arbitrary and self-serving way. To do this is grossly uncivil act. Are 'pupils' being protected from Marxist fundamentalists? Socialist fundamentalists? Atheist fundamentalists? Darwinian fundamentalists? Obviously not.
- what's so pathetic about this is that 'fundamentalism' is a word that has no meaning. The fact that it's given one definition by one group and another by other groups makes rational discourse impossible.
- all this goes back to the Marxist theorist Gramsci, who recommended using language as an attack on capitalists and Christians.
2. 'Most independent schools in Sweden are privately owned but funded by government grants, the article said. Schools that break the rules can be closed by the Swedish National Agency for Education, which is doubling the number of inspectors to ensure compliance.' [same as 1.]
- Isn't it interesting how all this anti-creationism makes jobs for atheists. (One could see it as a make work project.) Of course it's not only anti-creationism that makes for gov. jobs, but the larger project of anti-Christianity. There are literally millions of people employed in actively suppressing Christians, Christianity, and christian rights.
Notes;
1. Sweden Bans Creationism: Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/16/2007
2. It was not for a lack of evidence that Roland Huntford wrote a book on Sweden called the 'New Totalitarians' (available on some p2p sites) That was many years ago [1971] and the situation has just gotten worse. Socialism isn't about compassion, it's about totalitarian domination; it's about an oligarchy governing the populace by tyranny. (All for their own good of course.) It's about treating adults like children; it's about the loss of liberty.
3. to use the same word for different things commits the fallacy of equivocation.
4. Fundamentalist has been made (manufactured) into a term of abuse; when it simply isn't. It's a kind of fake word. Words like fundament, fundamental used to be considered ordinary useful words. The language vandals (guerillas) have destroyed the word, and especially its extension fundamentalist.
- I caution people that there can be no community where words are used as weapons.
5. This whole episode (being perpetrated around the world by the Darwinian elite) is so twisted and stupid it's hard to believe. People have no real freedom if they can't believe as they wish on the matter of Origins.
- how people can insist man is just an animal on the one hand, and then ban teaching on creation is more than I can comprehend. The latter simply doesn't follow from the former. (This isn't an argument, but simply Irrationalism.)
6. Fundamental;
- c.1443, "primary, original, pertaining to a foundation," modeled on L.L. fundamentalis "of the foundation," from L. fundamentum "foundation" (see fundament).
- for those of you who like etymological humor; everyone needs a place to sit.
7. Gramsci's stock has been on a steady climb for decades. (As evidence of this his name gets almost 9 million hits on Yahoo search.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Richard Dawkins tries to do philosophy; a sight to behold
Quotes and comments;
1. 'As a philosopher, Dawkins moralizes on the wickedness of ‘speciesism’, the view that we humans are more valuable than any other species.' [1.]
- A materialist has no basis for talking about wickedness, let alone the so called wickedness of speciesism! This is a joke. (Is there any New Age or Left wing fad Dawkins hasn't fallen for; he's as naive as a school boy.) Remember now, that he claims human beings are just gene carrying robots with no free will. This belief gives him no foundation for pontificating on the 'evils' of so called speciesism. (Talk about a delusion.)
- What makes this so laughable is the Dawkins is the prime example of someone who imagines he's wildly superior to other people. For decades he's ridiculed and mocked Christians and creationist; treating them like worms as he looks down on them from his god-like height. (But I guess that's okay. I guess it's okay to treat fellow human beings as grossly inferior as long as you don't treat rats and rabbits as inferior.)
- This is the kind of Granola bar Dawkins is. What basis can a gene bag have for making such a conclusion? i.e. how can you make moral judgments if there is no such thing as right and wrong? [see note #4.]
- I wonder if we dare tell Rich that all animals are guilty of speciesism. [Wasn't that what evolution was/is all about?] I'm not sure; the effect on his already unstable mental state might be damaging.
- If human beings aren't more 'valuable' than animals I guess that means we can eat human beings. (This is the obvious deduction from such an anti-human remark.)
- Why is it considered intellectually acceptable to say something no one in the world believes. (There isn't one single person on earth who doesn't believe human beings are superior to animals, and yet buffoons like Dawkins are allowed to spout off on the subject with nary a rebuke. It's more than passing strange.
- Valuable? that has no meaning in terms of evolutionary reductionism. Animals have no sense of value in the human sense; they use things they don't value things, let alone ideals, goals, institutions, etc. (Again; Dawkins is abusing language; engaging in flagrant equivocation.)
- Has dear old Rich forgotten that he doesn't believe in good and evil. This being the case it's hypocritical of him to speak of wickedness. (Why is he allowed to get away with this nonsense?)
- 'Richard Dawkins has said, ‘The universe we observe has … no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music [emphasis added].’ River out of Eden p.133 [4.]
- There's something ironic (if not irrational) about a man who doesn't believe he's superior to animals claiming (no, insisting) that there is no creator God.
- Maybe we should ask some of the other animals; after all, their opinion would be every bit as good as his.
- Dawkins loves to pretend to be humble, and in my opinion this is more of that posturing. (The man's real character comes out as soon as he picks up a pen to write.)
- As a philosopher! Please.
- Dawkins fancies himself a great philosopher. He's written a piece [2.] denouncing punishment for criminals. His rationale is this; man is just a machine, and we don't punish machines do we? Therefore (cough) we shouldn't punish human beings either. (He actually includes a bit where he describes an incident from Faulty Towers, where John Cleese beats up on his poor little car for stalling on him.) Are you impressed?
- Dawkins of course isn't above punishing Christians and creationists. (e.g. we have his vicious tirades on a seemingly endless basis. We have, from his peers, the fact Creationists denied tenure, fired from jobs, etc.) [3.] This is hypocrisy as absurd as Monty Python.
- The above is an interesting article; if Dawkins is correct that man is just a machine we find here the first manifesto written by a machine. (No wonder it's against punishing machines :=) It's all a joke. Machines can't think in moral terms; nor can mere matter in motion. The question then is this; why should I pay any attention to philosophy written by a machine?
Notes;
1. [Devil's Chaplain; chapter 1.3]
- I took the 'quote' from a review; Secular sermons; A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins [Creation.com]
2. 'Let's all stop beating Basil's car' [The Edge]
3. "On this episode [ID the Future] we provide breaking news and the latest developments in the ongoing controversy over Iowa State University's denial of tenure to noted astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez.
At the same time ISU denied tenure to Gonzalez, it promoted to full professor his chief persecutor--Hector Avalos, whose most recent book argues that the Bible is worse than Hitler's Mein Kampf." Here
3. When I called Dawkins a nut I meant of course to call him an eccentric.
4. ‘The universe we observe has … no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music [emphasis added].’ River out of Eden p.133
- John Lennox (who I have a high regard) has claimed in a lecture that the new atheists aren't postmodernists; that they believe in good and evil, in truth and falsehood; but this isn't true. (At least with Dawkins)
- How can a man who insists human beings are the slaves of selfish genes know what is or isn't a delusion? This is a joke.
- Dawkins claims Christians are irrational because they have no evidence for their faith. Gee; this is a man who claims people are deluded by their genes every time they do something. What pray tell is his basis for saying something is or is not a delusion? This makes no sense.
5. When Dawkins claims humans are no more 'valuable' than any other species, hasn't he insulted the genes he's carrying around :=)
1. 'As a philosopher, Dawkins moralizes on the wickedness of ‘speciesism’, the view that we humans are more valuable than any other species.' [1.]
- A materialist has no basis for talking about wickedness, let alone the so called wickedness of speciesism! This is a joke. (Is there any New Age or Left wing fad Dawkins hasn't fallen for; he's as naive as a school boy.) Remember now, that he claims human beings are just gene carrying robots with no free will. This belief gives him no foundation for pontificating on the 'evils' of so called speciesism. (Talk about a delusion.)
- What makes this so laughable is the Dawkins is the prime example of someone who imagines he's wildly superior to other people. For decades he's ridiculed and mocked Christians and creationist; treating them like worms as he looks down on them from his god-like height. (But I guess that's okay. I guess it's okay to treat fellow human beings as grossly inferior as long as you don't treat rats and rabbits as inferior.)
- This is the kind of Granola bar Dawkins is. What basis can a gene bag have for making such a conclusion? i.e. how can you make moral judgments if there is no such thing as right and wrong? [see note #4.]
- I wonder if we dare tell Rich that all animals are guilty of speciesism. [Wasn't that what evolution was/is all about?] I'm not sure; the effect on his already unstable mental state might be damaging.
- If human beings aren't more 'valuable' than animals I guess that means we can eat human beings. (This is the obvious deduction from such an anti-human remark.)
- Why is it considered intellectually acceptable to say something no one in the world believes. (There isn't one single person on earth who doesn't believe human beings are superior to animals, and yet buffoons like Dawkins are allowed to spout off on the subject with nary a rebuke. It's more than passing strange.
- Valuable? that has no meaning in terms of evolutionary reductionism. Animals have no sense of value in the human sense; they use things they don't value things, let alone ideals, goals, institutions, etc. (Again; Dawkins is abusing language; engaging in flagrant equivocation.)
- Has dear old Rich forgotten that he doesn't believe in good and evil. This being the case it's hypocritical of him to speak of wickedness. (Why is he allowed to get away with this nonsense?)
- 'Richard Dawkins has said, ‘The universe we observe has … no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music [emphasis added].’ River out of Eden p.133 [4.]
- There's something ironic (if not irrational) about a man who doesn't believe he's superior to animals claiming (no, insisting) that there is no creator God.
- Maybe we should ask some of the other animals; after all, their opinion would be every bit as good as his.
- Dawkins loves to pretend to be humble, and in my opinion this is more of that posturing. (The man's real character comes out as soon as he picks up a pen to write.)
- As a philosopher! Please.
- Dawkins fancies himself a great philosopher. He's written a piece [2.] denouncing punishment for criminals. His rationale is this; man is just a machine, and we don't punish machines do we? Therefore (cough) we shouldn't punish human beings either. (He actually includes a bit where he describes an incident from Faulty Towers, where John Cleese beats up on his poor little car for stalling on him.) Are you impressed?
- Dawkins of course isn't above punishing Christians and creationists. (e.g. we have his vicious tirades on a seemingly endless basis. We have, from his peers, the fact Creationists denied tenure, fired from jobs, etc.) [3.] This is hypocrisy as absurd as Monty Python.
- The above is an interesting article; if Dawkins is correct that man is just a machine we find here the first manifesto written by a machine. (No wonder it's against punishing machines :=) It's all a joke. Machines can't think in moral terms; nor can mere matter in motion. The question then is this; why should I pay any attention to philosophy written by a machine?
Notes;
1. [Devil's Chaplain; chapter 1.3]
- I took the 'quote' from a review; Secular sermons; A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins [Creation.com]
2. 'Let's all stop beating Basil's car' [The Edge]
3. "On this episode [ID the Future] we provide breaking news and the latest developments in the ongoing controversy over Iowa State University's denial of tenure to noted astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez.
At the same time ISU denied tenure to Gonzalez, it promoted to full professor his chief persecutor--Hector Avalos, whose most recent book argues that the Bible is worse than Hitler's Mein Kampf." Here
3. When I called Dawkins a nut I meant of course to call him an eccentric.
4. ‘The universe we observe has … no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music [emphasis added].’ River out of Eden p.133
- John Lennox (who I have a high regard) has claimed in a lecture that the new atheists aren't postmodernists; that they believe in good and evil, in truth and falsehood; but this isn't true. (At least with Dawkins)
- How can a man who insists human beings are the slaves of selfish genes know what is or isn't a delusion? This is a joke.
- Dawkins claims Christians are irrational because they have no evidence for their faith. Gee; this is a man who claims people are deluded by their genes every time they do something. What pray tell is his basis for saying something is or is not a delusion? This makes no sense.
5. When Dawkins claims humans are no more 'valuable' than any other species, hasn't he insulted the genes he's carrying around :=)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)