mynym

All of the revisionist historical rhetoric you manage to quote won't change the fact that Hitler was indeed Christian, and that the Third Reich's atrocities were based on Christian ideology.

After all, "killing the Jews because they killed Christ" has been the slogan of Christian white supremacist for decades -- or can you not recall the Klan's March on Washington? What better way to justify the slaughter of Jews than to blame them for the death of Christ? BINGO!!!

Anyway, you haven't yet answered 21-7-b, so I'll assume your job is just to be a propaganda mill, a tool for those who would further spread misinformation and lies instead of the truth. I feel sorry for the state of this country and indeed the world if Christians are so quick to forget the evil that they have brought into being.

Some people spend their entire lives looking for divine truths. Others find them in the burn patterns of a grilled cheese sandwich.

To each his own.

Folks, the favorite tools of intelligent design advocates are "causation through correlation" and strawman arguments. Learn to spot these and you can basically shoot down all of their arguments.

mynym: If there is another Anti-Christ type figure will you believe his claims to be the Messiah?

You must be referring to Reverand Moon. Kind of funny how conservative "Christians" are all about a news press that was created by an anti-Christian cult leader.

It's pretty easy to name Christian Fascists. I dare you to tell me that Franco or Charles Taylor were "athiests." If we want to talk about other Christian tyrants, Queen Elizabeth I and Henry VIII, and Queen Isabel of Spain ring a bell. This whole "debate" is trite. It is an attempt to either a) rewrite history to pretend that Christians have never done wrong, or b) blame religion for problems where it may have been a cursory cause, but was not itself a sole cause.

I tell you what, when I hear the Hail Mary or Shema one of the Salahs at a public high school graduation or football game without evangelical Christians' heads exploding, THEN we can have this discussion. Until then, I have little doubt that any of this is an attempt to enforce Biblical literalism on America.

In regards to the Hitler/Christianity debate (how the fark did we get on that):

The confusion about Christianity and Hitler really revolves around Hitler's mythology. Hitler based his religous and ethnic beliefs about "Aryan" mythology, which in itself is a culmination of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and various Arabian myths (most notably Persian). Much of the Christian ideology and mythology found in the Bible are also based around these same stories. Hitler was NOT a Christian, but used much of the same ancient stories and myths that Christianity uses, therefore the confusion is easily perpetuated.

/my two cents
//people who use this movie to promote I.D. are idiots
///much like people who promote any form of I.D.

You'll never get through to the christians. It actually makes me quite sad...they would sooner die or commit horrible acts than admit the weaknesses of their archaic dogma.

the problem is, though, that we can't just leave them alone. they are a detriment to our society. they are leeches that actually drag down the collective intelligence and progress of our nation.

Sad, but true...

NokNoKCPU


Ditto

It's quoted from Harper's Magazine, August 2005. 6/2/05.

However, the church that it was spoken from is John Hagee's Cornerstone Church. You might be able to find transcripts online somewhere -- it's from the year 2002.

Yes, I saw that. Quoting something like that using Harper's as your source really downplays the credibility of your posts.

In other words, if you believe what you quoted, you must be one of those types that falls for all sorts of bullshiat when said bullshiat suits their personal beliefs.

Seriously, the way that quote is flung around should ring off all sorts of alarms in any rational persons head.

To those saying that any who believe in ANY kind of spirituality are nutjobs (And yes, you're in this thread, I've seen you).

Do you believe that we, as humans, have any control at all over our own actions? Or are we essentially just meat-machines, complicated stimulus response boxes, subject to the whims of Cause and Effect and Quauntum randomness? (The latter of which probably wouldn't cause any meaningful deviations?).

If you believe the former, why? What evidence do you have?

If you believe the later, then how can you fault those who 'believe'? They don't have a choice, after all! It's not *their* fault.

Furthermore, do you believe Socrates to have been a nutjob for his philosophy? He didn't believe in the Gods per-se, but his Allegory of the Cave certainly pointed towards the fact that he believed in higher Truths (like Beauty, Justice, etc), that could exist independant of humans.

Ditto

Yes, I saw that. Quoting something like that using Harper's as your source really downplays the credibility of your posts.

In other words, if you believe what you quoted, you must be one of those types that falls for all sorts of bullshiat when said bullshiat suits their personal beliefs.

Seriously, the way that quote is flung around should ring off all sorts of alarms in any rational persons head.

I quoted Harper's as the link source -- and then I mentioned the original time and place and circumstances from which the quote was to have originated. If that's not enough for you, then I really don't know what to tell you.

There are other places that you may find the quote, and as I have said, there are probably transcripts of the quote elsewhere since it was broadcast over radio and television. I simply do not have the text right here in my hand, and I am truly sorry that I cannot instantly scan the transcripts and then upload image of them, then post it to Fark.

So, until you can debunk the quote, STFU and GBTW troll.

I think it's great that ID folks are stating this belief will be proven as a legitimate scientific theory in the future as if creationism is a new way of thought and a fresh take on God. I also find that if people are believing what was thought about before advances in science 2000 years ago, without question, then maybe they'll always stick to the story. The reason they are trying to push ID into schools is to recruit those kids who may not get fed these stories when they are 2 years old or so. Not everyone gets the opportunity to attend these displays of Christianity on Wednesday or Sunday, but maybe they can get it Monday through Friday. Fark, if the first thing a kid sees is a baptism (in some religions), and every week of their life they attend services with people they trust and follow the ideas with their impressionable minds, then it is truly the more intelligent folks who can see other options. This issue really is self-preservation from the religious institutions, who have done a great job managing to make those tax-free dollars, and holding high influence in the guvment, to maintain their hold over society, despite tons of observable evidence to the contrary. Fear of Hell and missing Heaven has held the hearts of people for many generations, even though appealing to people's Logos, or emotions, rather than their minds, has been considered unethical for many years by even spiritual writers.

mynym: Look, your idiotic "source" is a propagandist, may as well get that through your heads.


that's a lovely ad hominem you have there

PC LOAD LETTER
Ah, but Socrates arguably had some spirtualism of his own! True, he didn't believe in the Gods that most in the city of Athens believed in (one of the reasons he was killed.. for 'corrupting the youth', a laughable claim. >.>), but.. have you read Plato's republic? It seems to paint Socrates as one who believes that there *are* higher truths that we do not fully comprehend, even if such truths are not necessarily 'gods'.

Wouldn't that, in the opinion of some people on this thread (like mugen.), make him a 'worthless psycho religious nutjob'?

crazy_gaijin: that's a lovely ad hominem you have there

How dare you express an epistomology that discriminates against the supernatural. If we can't call people names, how can we ever prove anything?

/irreducable complexity my arse
//if in doubt, divide by zero - your answer will always be the same

NokNoKCPU

Call me what you want. I've heard worse.

The fact is that you quoted something and I can not find anything resembling proof that DeLay actually stated what you and Harpers are are saying he said. You give me a time and a place where you think he said what you think he said which does absolutely nothing.

The thing about quotes, I don't have to prove he didn't say it. You have to prove he did. I honestly tried to prove you correct, to prove that those words actually came out of Delays mouth, and have failed. If he said that and there were oh so many witnesses than why are the only places I can find it quoted are Harpers and a bunch of sites with titles like "Lets Roll! 911 Made Simple :: View topic - Religious fanatics"?

So, I feel completely comfortable saying that quote is horse shiat. Feel free to provide proof I'm wrong.

I wanna believe, but I have a hard time maintaining my faith with all you people coming up with this science stuff.

So everything has to have religion in it, total saturation, yay!

Felgraf

The burden of proof lies on those who make the claims.

NokNoKCPU

Actually, if you will just provide me with a link that has some way of contacting the author of the article that quote appears in than I will just contact him directly.

Everyone using that quote is doing the same as you, pointing to Harpers as the source.

Ditto

Consdering his political stance on Israel and open support of Christian fundamentalism:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/04/24/aipac.htm

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/bbc_transcript_zionists.htm

I don't find it that unlikely that Tom DeLay would indeed say something in effect to the quote in debate.


Oh, yeah, and here is the PROOF of the quote's validity:

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1192


Further observation on DeLay:

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1513


Just in case you wanted to dispute the quote... Lou Dubose (the author of those articles) is Tom DeLay's biographer.

tphillips
Aye, but that is what I am asking. I will not say for certain that God (or a god) does, or does not exist. I don't know. I will probably NEVER know. I have beliefs , but that is all that they are, and they could very well be wrong! But that doesn't bother me. It just means that there is more yet to explore, to learn, to ponder.

But others have said that those who believe in any shred of religion are 'delisional wackjobs' (Like, say, mugen.). My questions are pointed towards them, though sadly, I do not believe I will recieve an answer.

PC LOAD LETTER
But both Socrates and Buddhism (even in it's philosophical sense.. I admit, the philsophical interpretation of Karma fascinates me. ^_^), seem to also believe/agree that there *is* some sort Truth out there. But perhaps I am misinterpreting.. I was very irritated that we didn't read the whole of the Republic in my introductory philosophy class. I should go back and read the rest...


One can not prove the existance of God. There is not a shred of evidence that can hold up to scrutiny. One can not rule out the possibility of a God either, as the conventional defintion of a god or god-like character (if it is possible to define it at all) is an entity that does not take a uniquely identifiable concrete form, therefore we cannot say "God can never exist".
I think that I agree with this whole-heartedly, and the first statement is especially true if one 'believes' that God, should he/she/it/fnargh exist, is not enterily within the realm of comprehendability/exists 'outside' of the universe. As I also agree with

So, in conclusion, with the evidence presented, God or gods do not exist, but who the hell knows for sure anyway. .

I agree that we cannot know one way or another.. and indeed, that we do not. I suppose I have no real quarrel with you, although I do think I'd enjoy arguing with you quite a lot, as you seem to be intelligent and open minded. I like arguing with such people.. opens me to new ideas that I hadn't considered. =) I guess my quarrel was with those like mugen., who seem to mock those with any sense of spirituality whatsoever.

moogoob:

Actually, bashing religions is not against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am an individual person, and as such, I can say any old thing I like.

The government, however, cannot pass laws discriminating identifiable groups.

Felgraf: are we essentially just meat-machines, complicated stimulus response boxes, subject to the whims of Cause and Effect and Quauntum randomness? (The latter of which probably wouldn't cause any meaningful deviations?).

Yes.

why? What evidence do you have?

The entire body of scientific knowledge. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but it's true.

NokNoKCPU

I don't find it that unlikely that Tom DeLay would indeed say something in effect to the quote in debate.

Me neither.

Oh, yeah, and here is the PROOF of the quote's validity:

Good job. Wow. Funny how the nature of a quote changes when you learn more about the context. So he was one of several speakers at an event titled "A Night To Honor Israel", not a member of an audience during a regular old Sunday morning sermon. The original context from the Harpers article made it sound like Delay stood up in the middle of the sermon and just blurted it out. I guess I'll see if I can find out what else he was saying when he was making the speech that one sentence was stated in.

Further observation on DeLay:

Not sure of the point of posting this. Like I said, I'm no fan of Delay. Your original quote seemed like one I might be able to use if it turned out he really said that in the implied context of the Harpers article.

Lou Dubose (the author of those articles) is Tom DeLay's biographer.

Good. Maybe he can provide a transcript of the speech then. I was going to email McKibben but this Dubose person sounds more likely to have the information I want.

As second poster mentioned. Isn't it silly to think that penguins present some sort of proof of creation and ID? These are birds that have evolved to fly under water.

PC LOAD LETTER:

also go on the general assumption that we are not unique in this universe (though unlikely to actually be able to encounter them/prove that due to the size of the universe, and therefore, no, I don't think we are getting 'teh buttsecks' or whatever from aliens). I wonder about other sentient beings: what is their pursuit of Truth like? What is Nature like to them? What can they think that we cannot? Have they come closer to understanding their own mind than we? Do they even care about Truth?

You know what they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same. I bet the aliens/humanoids/sentient beings go through the same carp that we do. For instance, I bet those aliens on the other side of the Milky Way hates another group of aliens because they have three vestigal tendrils on their forehead vs. two or four. Or Six.

You know, the more things change. I bet they have their own version of Fark too, with their own flame wars about Flying Spaghetti Monsters, may he fill us with his noodly goodness or something.

\Our monster, who art in Pasta, hallowed be thy dish. Thy restaurant come, they fettucini be served, in restaurant and for to-go. Give us this day our daily noodles, and forgive us our bread-eatin' as we forgive those who eat toast. Lead us not into ravioli but deliver us some free pasta.
\\Ramen

Ditto
Do you need that much proof concerning quotes of people that 'your not a fan of'? I think not or you would be either be; 1) A person with no opinions because you don't believe anything you personally didn't confirm. 2) A person who spends ALL his time confirming quotes personally.

NokNokCPU has gone beyond what most people would consider reasonable to proove the validity of the quote he cited.

/why is it so hard for people people to just admit they were wrong?

whatshisname
So you agree/believe, then, that No one is actually 'responsible' for any of their actions, as everything that was and will be was dictated at the beginning of the universe? That everything that was and will happen is 'written in stone', in a sense, dictated by cause and effect? That we are engaged in a pitiful dance that not only has no inherent meaning, but cannot be given any meaning whatsoever , because we are not in control of our actions?

Just wanna make sure you're willing to take your assertion to its logical conclusion...

Aldon

Do you need that much proof concerning quotes of people that 'your not a fan of'? I think not or you would be either be; 1) A person with no opinions because you don't believe anything you personally didn't confirm. 2) A person who spends ALL his time confirming quotes personally.

NokNokCPU has gone beyond what most people would consider reasonable to proove the validity of the quote he cited.

/why is it so hard for people people to just admit they were wrong?

I think Ditto's point was that he wanted to start being able to use the quote against Tom DeLay, but in order to start doing that, he needed to be absolutely certain that the quote was a real one. It's important to have documentation and evidence supporting things that you claim, simply because it makes it harder for people to refute you.

I understand Ditto's concerns that the quote may have not been valid, although the quote certainly is disturbing, even in contex. Thanks for sticking up for me though, I appreciate it a lot. ^__^

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance,
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.

A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
"The stars aren't aligned,
Or the gods are malign..."
Blame is better to give than receive.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand,
The cards were stacked against them; they weren't born in Lotus land.

All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate.
Kicked in the face,
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete.
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

- Rush, "Freewill"

Felgraf: Just wanna make sure you're willing to take your assertion to its logical conclusion...


No, you're trying to force me to take it to a completely illogical conclusion. People are chemical machines. That does not mean that those machines do not know what's good for them.

whatshisname
*Blinks* Why is my conclusion illogical? Please point to the flaw, because I'd like to know.

If we are chemical machines, you agree that we cannot 'choose', correct? Any 'decision' or 'knowledge' we come to is merely the complicated reaction of chemicals with each other? We are not much different from a rat or a dog or a cow, save that we are a bit more complicated, and have opposable thumbs?

Furthermore, out of curiosity, if we agree that humans are merely chemical machines, do you believe that human life is inherently valuable? Or are only the chemical machines that contribute to the well-being of other chemical machines 'valuable' to an individual?

Aldon

1) People are often misquoted.
2) People are often quoted out of context.
3) People are often misquoted out of context.

Here's some great examples.

Say there's a dictator and he is quoted as saying "We must terminate all of them. We must find their home and kill them there so that we get their young too."

Sounds horrible, until you find out this was part of a conversation the dictator was having with the exterminator about termites.

Speeches are the worst though. Somebody can make a 30 minute speech and the some politically motivated individual will take one sentence out of the middle of it, frame it in their agenda of choice, and then use it to display how good/evil the speaker was even though the original use of the sentence had absolutely nothing to do with how it was being quoted.

It's not so much that Delay said what he said. It's where he was, and what he was doing, when he said it.

BTW, NokNoKCPU thanks again for that link to the Texas Observer. After reading a few articles I ponied up for a subscription.

Proof of Gods exhistance you say? Itsn't that also known as Lesbian Porno?

always causes me to have a religious experience or two.

Felgraf: Furthermore, out of curiosity, if we agree that humans are merely chemical machines, do you believe that human life is inherently valuable? Or are only the chemical machines that contribute to the well-being of other chemical machines 'valuable' to an individual?

What on earth in 'inherently valuable'? At the end of the day, this life is ALL we have. That's how valuable it is. Everybody has a right to live their life unhindered by others.

whatshisname

Everybody has a right to live their life unhindered by others.

Why?

Where does this right come from?

Religion has nothing to do with spirituality.
It has everything to do with controling others.

Religion is for the spiritually lazy.

"Sanity by consensus" -Bill Maher

Felgraf: Why?
Where does this right come from?

Our brains.

Felgraf: Why?
Where does this right come from?

Let me expand on that a bit - it comes from lots of brains and lots of experience and our evolution.

We know that we are alive, and we know through observation and experience that we can be dead. Being alive is preferable to being dead. This is not a strictly human trait, it's something which is built in to life. Even the lowliest of animals, which will run from a predator. So, our actions all stem from trying to keep ourselves alive for as long as possible.

Some of those actions and feelings and ways of behaving are shared among the majority of other people. They are common traits that have developed through evolution. We call these ideas 'rights' or 'morals' and codify these ways of behaving into laws.

Daedalus27 is a kook.

whatshisname

*Nods* A good argument.

But why should I care about the what another human wants, if it gets in my way? If I have power (whether by brains or brawn), should I not exercise it, even if others rights are jeapordized? Indeed, it might arguably be 'wrong' to *not* use power if it would help me, as a being or individual, live longer, just as it would be 'wrong', or against the natural order, for a hawk to care about the 'rights' or desires of survival of the mouse that it eats.

((Sorry, I admit, I'm just a major fan of the Socratic method, or "Why won't that bastard stop asking these annoying questions?" method. You have a good argument, I'm just trying to feel out what you believe, and I suppose I am trying to raise a few counter-points/arguments/questions. =) ))

Felgraf: But why should I care about the what another human wants, if it gets in my way?

It's a balancing act. Infringe too much and it can be detrimental. Altruism has a bilogical reward in the long run.

KnickKnolte

I would not call it hypocrisy, I would call it good economics.

/Stolen from Scott Adams.

I think it is silly to argue for id in science classrooms if behe is the best on on their side, Please tell me they are calling 'Dr. Dino' to testify.

datafox

The only thing Dr. Dino (Hovind) would testify to is how much money you can make by selling creationist material to gullible Crhistians. His website is just a gigantic online shop for creationists. I'm sure he's raking in the cash from these shmucks.

And honestly, I think Behe is in the same boat. Behe strikes me as being too smart to believe the crap he's saying. Read the Dover trial transcripts, and you'll see just how good he is at evading any sort of question that would pin ID down to a concrete theory or hypothesis. He's just in this for the royalties from book sales and fees from speaking engagements. I'm torn between admiration and disgust for these people.