100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Atheism Weak or Strong | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Peter Singer, the bioethicist at Princeton University who supports infanticide and euthanasia for the disabled, for instance, admits that Darwinism underpins his dismissal of the sanctity of human life. Richard Dawkins likewise claims Darwinian support for euthanasia. The "sanctity" of human life is something that has been invented by, and ignored by religion. George Carlin: Sanctity of life. You believe in it? Personally, I think it's a bunch of ****. Well, I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey, if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians all taking turns killing each other 'cuz God told them it was a good idea. The sword of God, the blood of the land, vengeance is mine. Millions of dead mfs. Millions of dead mfs all because they gave the wrong answer to the God question. 'You believe in God?' 'No.' *Pdoom*. Dead. 'You believe in God?' 'Yes.' 'You believe in my God? 'No.' *Poom*. Dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Nubby
on
Sun 01/25/09 02:37 PM
|
|
Peter Singer, the bioethicist at Princeton University who supports infanticide and euthanasia for the disabled, for instance, admits that Darwinism underpins his dismissal of the sanctity of human life. Richard Dawkins likewise claims Darwinian support for euthanasia. The "sanctity" of human life is something that has been invented by, and ignored by religion. George Carlin: Sanctity of life. You believe in it? Personally, I think it's a bunch of ****. Well, I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey, if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians all taking turns killing each other 'cuz God told them it was a good idea. The sword of God, the blood of the land, vengeance is mine. Millions of dead mfs. Millions of dead mfs all because they gave the wrong answer to the God question. 'You believe in God?' 'No.' *Pdoom*. Dead. 'You believe in God?' 'Yes.' 'You believe in my God? 'No.' *Poom*. Dead.
The idea that man is created in Gods image is the highest value you can put on life. Christianity has a sad history. I will not run from that. We must be careful that we do not lay these atrocities at the feet of Christ though. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. We need to look at his teachings and his life if we are going to find out what Christianity really is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The idea that man is created in Gods image is the highest value you can put on life. Christianity has a sad history. I will not run from that. We must be careful that we do not lay these atrocities at the feet of Christ though. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. We need to look at his teachings and his life if we are going to find out what Christianity really is.
Yet to this day we hear talk about the "sanctity of life" from religion in one breath, then in the next breath we hear about how those who don't believe(either in the same mythical sky-man, or at all) should be killed. So, at best this "sanctity" is objective, based on the person talking. Though I must ask, why is it humane to put a dying pet out of it's misery, but it's a criminal charge to put a human, suffering from the same disease out of their misery? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The idea that man is created in Gods image is the highest value you can put on life. Christianity has a sad history. I will not run from that. We must be careful that we do not lay these atrocities at the feet of Christ though. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. We need to look at his teachings and his life if we are going to find out what Christianity really is.
Yet to this day we hear talk about the "sanctity of life" from religion in one breath, then in the next breath we hear about how those who don't believe(either in the same mythical sky-man, or at all) should be killed. So, at best this "sanctity" is objective, based on the person talking. Though I must ask, why is it humane to put a dying pet out of it's misery, but it's a criminal charge to put a human, suffering from the same disease out of their misery? I would not call it mythical, you now have people like Anthony Flew urging for intelligent design. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Inkracer
on
Sun 01/25/09 02:57 PM
|
|
The idea that man is created in Gods image is the highest value you can put on life. Christianity has a sad history. I will not run from that. We must be careful that we do not lay these atrocities at the feet of Christ though. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. We need to look at his teachings and his life if we are going to find out what Christianity really is.
Yet to this day we hear talk about the "sanctity of life" from religion in one breath, then in the next breath we hear about how those who don't believe(either in the same mythical sky-man, or at all) should be killed. So, at best this "sanctity" is objective, based on the person talking. Though I must ask, why is it humane to put a dying pet out of it's misery, but it's a criminal charge to put a human, suffering from the same disease out of their misery? I would not call it mythical, you now have people like Anthony Flew urging for intelligent design. myth·i·cal 1. Of or existing in myth 2. Imaginary; fictitious. So, because there are people out there who choose to ignore the scientific evidence for evolution, I shouldn't call something that is mythical, mythical. 
And, by the way, I'm still waiting for an answer. . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Flew is a Deist, like our Founding Fathers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Flew is a Deist, like our Founding Fathers. I know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."
Inability to explain the coming of existence of the first cell present major problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Flew is a Deist, like our Founding Fathers. I know. Well you always say that as if we should be impressed. He’s not a Christian. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."
Inability to explain the coming of existence of the first cell present major problems. Thats why science is required. That is the point being made. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."
Inability to explain the coming of existence of the first cell present major problems. While science doesn't have the answer(yet), It has least has theories that can be tested, and accepted. ID doesn't have that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am saying there are some major problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 01/25/09 04:28 PM
|
|
I dont really understand how the First Cause did not have a cause? Why is it exempt from having a cause?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am saying there are some major problems. Again, Science is working to find an answer to these problems. the ID people are just sitting there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darwin had no clue how truly complex the living cell is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darwin had no clue how truly complex the living cell is. But theologians do? They just say that poof, we magically appeared. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darwin had no clue how truly complex the living cell is. And saying that doesn't to anything for the ID argument, so the guy responsible for the Theory of Evolution didn't know about the complexity of the cell, guess what? At that time, NO one did!! Complexity does not equal "Intelligent" Designer, Complexity only equals complexity. And the Theory of Evolution pretty thoroughly covers how we ended up with the complex cells/organs/creatures we have today. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darwin had no clue how truly complex the living cell is. But theologians do? They just say that poof, we magically appeared. I believe the Christian is in a good position to follow the evidence wherever it leads. The atheist has no other choice, He must find a way to explain how life could arise from purely naturalistic processes. |
|
|
|
|
