Did Darwin Kill God?

jesusdrugs.jpg
 
johnny crossan said:
ElanJo said:
johnny crossan said:
It's Easter Elanjo, how about popping out to spread your excrement on a few altars.
Invite the celebrants to share your purposeless, intolerant, immoral and empty void.

Expound the virtues of selfishness and abuse those attempting to live a religious life. Even better, why don't you burn a few churches or mosques or synagogues - and better still - with the worshippers inside?

God help you.
Click to expand...

Which one?
There has been more "Gods" than Muslim Suicide Bomber Instructors...


PS. If calling me a "murderous Godless heathen" is the best you can do then I think you need to pray, to your God, for direction, if not a brain.

Enjoy your choccy eggs, even if it isn't easter yet.
Click to expand...
You left out Copraphileac !

Actually Elanjo, I accept you probably don’t have murder in your heart.

Having said that I’m going to resort to a few quotes (but this time from your own contributions to the Dawkins/Darwin thread you started) which may explain why I have the impression that you need help in coping with the modern world.

Do you remember writing for example:

“(believing in God) is similar to a lot of Alien Abduction claims.... those that get abducted by these higher beings are never physicists, biologists etc etc, they are almost always, for want of a better word, "losers"

or

“technically it was Muhammad who was the paedophile. He was the one that married a 6 year old, called Aisha, and fooked her when she was 9. Not Allah. Allah is an imaginary being. Pretty difficult for him to have his way with a kid

or


“I'd love to see the day where every single Christian thought that, as that would be yet another step in the direction of ridding the world of Christianity. Evolution, like Alien life (once discovered) are 2 things that cripple religion, and why they will fight to the death to undermine both.”

I could go on, but it’s probably too painful for us both.


Whatever would you do if Aliens believed in God?
Click to expand...

You accept that I probably don't have murder in my heart? Well, thank you!!, I'm so happy. Such a wait off of my shoulders. I'm welling up here...


You'll have to explain why those quotes lead you to believe that I need help coping with the modern world. I see no logical correlation there... but, hey, I don't have God on my side, right?


What would I do if Aliens believed in a God?(of some kind) I would ask them about their belief, and ask them if they had any evidence to suggest that their belief is a correct one.
What would you do if they didn't believe in a God?, or better yet, and 99.999999% chance of certainty, what would you do if they weren't Christians?? Quote scripture and tell them to repent? Quote Popper? Tell them that they get sexually aroused by feces?
 
The Kurious Oranj said:
Bigga said:
Can anybody of ANY purported intellect tell me if they actually WATCHED the said programme the title thread is named after??
Click to expand...

Hi Bigga. I don't know about having any purported intellect, but I did watch the said programme.

It was a disappointing and very unbalanced contribution to the otherwise excellent Darwin season on the Beeb. Of course Darwin didn't 'kill' God, but he did come up with a rather elegant theory that removed the need for the idea of a God to explain the way life on earth is.

The rather annoying bloke who presented the programme was not disagreeing with Darwin's Theory of Evolution but attempting to claim, somewhat unconvincingly, that there was no conflict between the idea of Christianity and the idea of Evolution. He suggested that the Bible was allegorical and should not be (and never has been according to him) taken literally. He suggested that scientific ideas fit quite nicely into Christian theology and there is no conflict between the two. He is, of course, a complete looney.

The whole point of science is that it attempts to explain by the use of facts and evidence, something that is completing lacking from, not just Christianity, but all of the Abrahimic religions. They are based on faith which is basically a belief without evidence. To quote Nietzsche ' Faith means not wanting to know what is true'.
Click to expand...

How appropriate to end by quoting Nietzsche - an avid Darwinian supporter & complete looney.
 
Bigga said:
PMSL!! Maybe I should stop speaking in layman's terms in other to get through to the Scientists on this forum!! But I won't, because I want everyone to see what I'm saying...

If somehow your argument is that the Ice Age, Bronze Age etc., etc., happened to wipe out the entire missing link (more coincidence!), I would accept that that may be a reason as to why there's a sudden jump from Ape to Man-Ape(just for you GoForGlory!)! I mean, that would leave a convenient gap to explain things wonderfully!

However, does that mean the Ape that is genetically predisposed to wander and "stand on its hind-legs" has stopped evolving?

I can look around and at any point see a tree in various growing stages, from acorns to saplings to big old trees! We can see coastlines evolve over time. There's no 'missing stages'. It's all there.

Even if I accept the argument for the process to be slow, what I'm TRYING TO SAY, is that SOMEWHERE on this planet MUST BE living evidence of evolving Ape to Man-Ape in its infancy or mid stage or penultimate stages. there's none. Not ONE IOTA of living proof except that we happen to hold the same basic shapes of Apes! Oh and share DNA and brain shape!

IF after this painstakingly simplified point, you don't 'understand', well I give up!! I'll accept that you will have copped out on a feasible explanation to my post.
Click to expand...

Now you're just making yourself look silly. Have you actually READ any books on evolution? No I thought not. I recommend the 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Prof Richard Dawkins. Come back when you've read that and then you might be able to talk a bit more sense. Alternatively, if your mental capacity isn't up to understanding a book, here's a simple video that explains things for you <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfWevc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fricharddawkins%2Enet%2Fforum%2Fviewtopic%2Ephp%3Ff%3D46%26t%3D76896&feature=player_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfW ... r_embedded</a>
 
The Kurious Oranj said:
Bigga said:
PMSL!! Maybe I should stop speaking in layman's terms in other to get through to the Scientists on this forum!! But I won't, because I want everyone to see what I'm saying...

'good point , well made' - but long - Bigga

IF after this painstakingly simplified point, you don't 'understand', well I give up!! I'll accept that you will have copped out on a feasible explanation to my post.
Click to expand...

Now you're just making yourself look silly. Have you actually READ any books on evolution? No I thought not. I recommend the 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Prof Richard Dawkins. Come back when you've read that and then you might be able to talk a bit more sense. Alternatively, if your mental capacity isn't up to understanding a book, here's a simple video that explains things for you <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfWevc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fricharddawkins%2Enet%2Fforum%2Fviewtopic%2Ephp%3Ff%3D46%26t%3D76896&feature=player_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfW ... r_embedded</a>
Click to expand...



Well, well, Kurious Oranj, you do seem like an unpleasant and particularly stupid fellow.

Not only are you recommending the the totally discredited Blind Watchmaker (disowned some years ago even by the laughable Dawkins) but you can't even recognise a sincere & sensible question, as that put by Bigga, or a straightforward analysis, such as that offered on 'Did Darwin Kill God?'.

On the limited ground he marked out for himself in the programme, Conor Cunningham was entirely successful in making his case that the biblical account of the creation myth has been generally understood as allegorical - apart from a few Anglicans in the latter half of the 19th century + a strain of fundamentalist American Christians 30 years later for primarily the same political reasons.

There is no conflict between science and religion, to suggest there is involves a systematic misuse of language. Dawkins achieved a little publicity for his category mistakes some years ago in 'The Selfish Gene' but no practising scientist has ever taken this rubbish seriously, especially the atheists, for example those as interviewed in the TV programme.

Are you keeping up with this or, as Stephen Fry might put it, shall we open the big cupboard, take out a cane & give you a sound thrashing (metaphorically of course).
 
johnny crossan said:
The Kurious Oranj said:
Bigga said:
PMSL!! Maybe I should stop speaking in layman's terms in other to get through to the Scientists on this forum!! But I won't, because I want everyone to see what I'm saying...

'good point , well made' - but long - Bigga

IF after this painstakingly simplified point, you don't 'understand', well I give up!! I'll accept that you will have copped out on a feasible explanation to my post.
Click to expand...

Now you're just making yourself look silly. Have you actually READ any books on evolution? No I thought not. I recommend the 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Prof Richard Dawkins. Come back when you've read that and then you might be able to talk a bit more sense. Alternatively, if your mental capacity isn't up to understanding a book, here's a simple video that explains things for you <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfWevc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fricharddawkins%2Enet%2Fforum%2Fviewtopic%2Ephp%3Ff%3D46%26t%3D76896&feature=player_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfW ... r_embedded</a>
Click to expand...



Well, well, Kurious Oranj, you do seem like an unpleasant and particularly stupid fellow.

Not only are you recommending the the totally discredited Blind Watchmaker (disowned some years ago even by the laughable Dawkins) but you can't even recognise a sincere & sensible question, as that put by Bigga, or a straightforward analysis, such as that offered on 'Did Darwin Kill God?'.

On the limited ground he marked out for himself in the programme, Conor Cunningham was entirely successful in making his case that the biblical account of the creation myth has been generally understood as allegorical - apart from a few Anglicans in the latter half of the 19th century + a strain of fundamentalist American Christians 30 years later for primarily the same political reasons.

There is no conflict between science and religion, to suggest there is involves a systematic misuse of language. Dawkins achieved a little publicity for his category mistakes some years ago in 'The Selfish Gene' but no practising scientist has ever taken this rubbish seriously, especially the atheists, for example those as interviewed in the TV programme.

Are you keeping up with this or, as Stephen Fry might put it, shall we open the big cupboard, take out a cane & give you a sound thrashing (metaphorically of course).
Click to expand...

Oh dear. The Christian resorts to personal abuse. Well fancy that! Where to start with your post? Frankly there really isn't much point in bothering as you are clearly just a big fat WUM. However, I suppose I should make some effort to respond to your silliness.

So let's get this straight; you believe in the theory of evolution (at least I think you do, you aren't the most succinct of writers) but you think that 'The Blind Watchmaker' is discredited and even disowned by Dawkins and that 'The Selfish Gene' is rubbish that no scientist takes seriously? The only possible response to that is WTF!! I know, I know it's a wind up intit? But April 1 was last week you fool. If it's not just a silly wind-up and you seriously believe what you're writing then please provide some evidence or just continue to look a complete tit.

Darwin, and indeed Dawkins, do not say the theory of evolution "shows there is NO God". What he says is - there is now a perfectly natural explanation for the emergence of man, and indeed all other life on earth and there is thus no longer any need to make the mistaken postulation of god as creator of man ... because that's simply wrong!

And further, "God" is any case not an explanation of man's creation, or the creation of other life, or indeed the creation of anything at all. The God claim really is just another way of theists saying they don't know how anything was created/formed ... to say these things were the result of divine miracle from God, is really just saying "I don't have an explanation for any of these things, so I will say it's a miracle!" .... that's only an explanation if you say HOW god did it .... but no theist has ever answered that question (except by postulating even more miracles!).

Am I keeping up? Er, I think you've been lapped a few times, Sir. I suggest a pit stop so you spend a little time researching what you're talking about.

I rather think that the excellent Mr Fry would rather give you a sound thrashing ...

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zHcBF-g7-c&feature=player_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zHcBF-g ... r_embedded</a>

'Religion - Shit it.' - Stephen Fry
 
johnny crossan said:
The Kurious Oranj said:
Bigga said:
PMSL!! Maybe I should stop speaking in layman's terms in other to get through to the Scientists on this forum!! But I won't, because I want everyone to see what I'm saying...

'good point , well made' - but long - Bigga

IF after this painstakingly simplified point, you don't 'understand', well I give up!! I'll accept that you will have copped out on a feasible explanation to my post.
Click to expand...

Now you're just making yourself look silly. Have you actually READ any books on evolution? No I thought not. I recommend the 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Prof Richard Dawkins. Come back when you've read that and then you might be able to talk a bit more sense. Alternatively, if your mental capacity isn't up to understanding a book, here's a simple video that explains things for you <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfWevc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fricharddawkins%2Enet%2Fforum%2Fviewtopic%2Ephp%3Ff%3D46%26t%3D76896&feature=player_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfW ... r_embedded</a>
Click to expand...



Well, well, Kurious Oranj, you do seem like an unpleasant and particularly stupid fellow.

Not only are you recommending the the totally discredited Blind Watchmaker (disowned some years ago even by the laughable Dawkins) but you can't even recognise a sincere & sensible question, as that put by Bigga, or a straightforward analysis, such as that offered on 'Did Darwin Kill God?'.

On the limited ground he marked out for himself in the programme, Conor Cunningham was entirely successful in making his case that the biblical account of the creation myth has been generally understood as allegorical - apart from a few Anglicans in the latter half of the 19th century + a strain of fundamentalist American Christians 30 years later for primarily the same political reasons.

There is no conflict between science and religion, to suggest there is involves a systematic misuse of language. Dawkins achieved a little publicity for his category mistakes some years ago in 'The Selfish Gene' but no practising scientist has ever taken this rubbish seriously, especially the atheists, for example those as interviewed in the TV programme.

Are you keeping up with this or, as Stephen Fry might put it, shall we open the big cupboard, take out a cane & give you a sound thrashing (metaphorically of course).
Click to expand...

Your edit of Bigga's post just shows to everyone that you do not understand evolution and that, well, you're uneducated on the basics of history and science.. if Bigga making one almighty cock up of comparing the Bronze Age to an Ice Age, two terms that both end in "Age" yet are not connected in any way shape or form, warrants a "good point, well made" description from you, then all I can do is laugh.

As for your reply... well, no doubt you misunderstand the "Selfish Gene" to mean selfish little conscious critters. Last time I looked(about 6 month's ago) the "selfish gene" was discovered, "conclusively", by scientists working on the "Honey Bee Genome Project". Also, Dawkins' Selfish Gene has been far from "rubbish" in the eyes of scientists

As for the Blind Watchmaker, a classic, I'd love to see your source for your claim that Dawkins refutes it. Of course, you will ignore this request.

Funny that you bring up Fry, a man who, according to the Bible, is an "abomination"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.