A blog where I discuss intelligent issues and discuss rationality, logic, evidence and my non belief in sky daddies.
Mike said:" ...look at history and we are evolving morally. If i stood up 100 years ago and was racist it would be o.k but now it isn't. Think about it."We could debate your assertion that religion is the cause of problems, but we still need to address who or what created religion in your worldview. It would seem logical that if evolution created all things in your worldview than evolution created religion. If evolution created religion than how can you be upset with someone for being religious.In your own words it was okay to be a racist 100 years ago. Was it okay? Was it morally correct to treat one race as inferior 100 years ago? Not in my book. You have a Civil War soldier in your cartoon claiming religion caused slavery, but you readily admit that it was okay to be a racist. If evolution created all things who are you to judge the product of evolution? Were you around when evolution created all things?
I cant believe that your criticising evolution when theres so much evidence for it
Evolution is still a theory. It is not a proven fact. It is based on one group of peoples interpretation of observable facts.Untold times mankind has misinterpreted observable facts.Your worldview which is fueled by evolution is not consistent.You have claimed to be a bright, intelligent person.What do you base that on?Your opinion is that it was okay to be racist 100 years ago. In your view morality and reality are continuing to evolve.You cannot assert anything is moral today and will continue to be moral in the future because you have an ever changing morality.So what you believe to be moral today could be totally immoral tomorrow.Doesn't that bother you a little bit?Doesn't it give you pause and cause you to think about what you believe to be true?It would scare me if I thought my reality and morality rested on the ever shifting sands of evolution.
Sorry Mikey. Look at Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot. Those were all atheistic regimes. They weren't exactly on the side of the angels. The worst sufferings of humanity have occurred in those regimes and more blood has been spilled by them than the church in 20 centuries, even if you compensated for increased technology.Mikey. You're just woefully uninformed and it shows whenever you go to your keyboard. Honestly, what books have you read on events like the Crusades?
rc - are you saying that if you idnt believe in your skydaddy racism would be o.k?nick, i have addressed that here
Mikey. Hitler in his writings showed a hatred for Christianity, but he used it in speaking to win a crowd. Stalin was hand-chosen by Lenin for his hatred of things religious.You are so gullible.
Racism is wrong period. It was wrong for all time. You state racism was okay 100 years ago. Why was racism okay 100 years ago?You do not believe in God.You believe evolution created all things.You believe Christians are dumb and worship a "skydaddy."If evolution created all things it created racists and Christians.You should blame evolution.In your world evolution created all errors in belief. Evolution created all murderers, child molesters, and rapists.You need to ask your god, Evolution, why it messed up.
Mikey, if we are getting more moral as time goes on... answer this question...Why was it in 1920 a women could walk though central park at 3 am without fear of rape and she can't do that today? Shouldn't it be the other way around if society was becoming more moral?
i cant believe how ignorant you all are on this subject. Go read some books by intelligent people like richard dawkins.
Been there done, that. Have you read books by NT Wright or Ben Witherington or do you prefer to let people on youtube to do your thinking for you?
Pixie:"Mikey, if we are getting more moral as time goes on... answer this question...Why was it in 1920 a women could walk though central park at 3 am without fear of rape and she can't do that today? Shouldn't it be the other way around if society was becoming more moral?"So Mike I think the lady would like you to answer her question.Can you answer it? I would appreciate it if you would try to answer her question. I would like to carry on a dialogue with you. It seems other Christians would too. Has it ever crossed your mind why I would seemingly waste my time talking to someone who would just as soon insult me or the Triune God? It is because I am concerned about you and I believe your worldview is in error.At any rate the dialogue between us might help each of us.It would be helpful to the conversation if you would try to honestly answer questions posed to you.It might be helpful to you as well.A little introspection never hurt anyone.I like you Mike. I really do.I look forward to talking to you in the future.
i cant believe im responding to such a stupid argument. well thats quite simple. People then were ignorant, without tv and stuff they didnt realise that being raped was a posability. we are talking about people who thought that you became pregnant by kissing people. I think that its good how now people no all about the dangers of rape. We know that people such as jack the ripper were wandering around parks raping people so it happened, the fact people were ignorant of it was a bad thing.
Charles Darwin(1809-1882)Charles Darwin was born and died well before 1920.Was Charles Darwin ignorant?Was Charles Darwin unaware of the possibility of being raped because he did not have television and stuff?Would someone such as Charles Darwin be able to figure the origens of man without a television and stuff?Just a little food for thought Mike.Thanks for engaging in the conversation.
By the way Mike thanks for letting me share my thoughts in your blog.
Mikey. I did my research paper last semester on Richard Dawkins. The guy is great in biology and zoology, but he's clueless on theology, philosophy, and history. Alister McGrath shows this well in "The Dawkins Delusion."Mikey. You really just don't know what you're talking about.
charles dawin was not a rapist or the type of person who went for walks in parks full of rapists so thats irelevant.If you have read dawkins and still are an xian then you havent even got ignorance at your defense.
"I cant believe im responding to such a stupid argument."I can't believe you really think you gave an answer. well thats quite simple. People then were ignorant, without tv and stuff they didnt realise that being raped was a posability.1. radio existed and second... radio isn't any worse then modern day TV that beams stupidity into our heads.2. They didn't know it was possible? Are you stupid or something? You really think my grandmother didn't know that was possible? You know why he didn't happen like it does today? People back then were being more moral then today."we are talking about people who thought that you became pregnant by kissing people. I think that its good how now people no all about the dangers of rape."HAHAHAHAHAH!Where did you get that information from? I didn't read that in my history books or did we go over that in my history class. Go tell that to your history teach and tell me how much he or she laughs and corrects you. The fact is Mikey... men did not rape women nearly as much in that era as they do today, shattering your claim that we are getting more moral as time goes on... "We know that people such as jack the ripper were wandering around parks raping people so it happened, the fact people were ignorant of it was a bad thing."Jack the Ripper was around in England in 1888, about 40 years latter. Second, those types of murders in that era were pretty rare... a bit different then todays. You are using a rare exception and pretending it was common back then... it wasn't and serial killers are far more common today then back then. Over all... you showed us yet again how big of an idiot you are.
"charles dawin was not a rapist or the type of person who went for walks in parks full of rapists so thats irelevant."Central Park WASN'T full of rapist in 1920 you dumb twit! What are you not understanding here?"If you have read dawkins and still are an xian then you havent even got ignorance at your defense."I'm sorry, does this count as a response in the real world?
Mikey. Sorry, but Dawkins just doesn't know what he's talking about. Now please tell me what Christian authors you've read that counter Dawkins. Have you read Alister McGrath for instance?
i think your the ones which need to go away and read a history book
"i think your the ones which need to go away and read a history book"I have read history books and guess what... nobody was saying in 1920 kissing makes you pregnant. My grandmother is from that era and she knows were babies come from. I've read books and had classes on American history and that was never in the text. The problem is that you're just stupid Mikey
Post a Comment