Atheist-evolutionist Get Censored And Cry Foul.

[ikester7579 20]

I have done a few threads about the hate brewing across the internet concerning Christians, and creationist. Atheist-evolutionist have accused me of being paranoid to several other things as well. Now the proof for the pudding has cropped up to show it's ugly head of hate. As one anti-Christian organization seeks to put into jail a whole family just because of the hate that he has.

 

As I watched the video, that I will leave a link to below, I could just imagine this same person wearning a Nazi uniform, and standing behind a podium shouting like the most famous crazed hater of them all. The one we all know so well from history. As he spews his hate and boasts about it. And people wonder why he has to live in a bunker for protection.

 

You cannot spew that much hate at people without you reaping what you have sown. Except now I expect He will reap worse than he has sown. And it will basically be his own fault.

 

Anyway, watch the video.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/ra...uad_alerts/9978

[Guest kega]

I like the way they try and twist it and make out like its the copyright that is the problem.

[pwnagepanda 0]

well, I am not so sure i agree with him saying that they should throw the rest of the H*vind family in jail. however, CSE ministries is violating copyright law by doing this. (if you disagree, i would first take a look at the relevant legal code). As I have stated before, I do not particuoarily agree with the rational responders about their premise of eliminating theism. I personally have no problem with religion and have had a very good experience with Judaism, BUT, when religion tries to pass itself off as science or tries to violate the law for its own interests. And by the way, as to the incarceration of Kent and Jo H*vind- no one is above the law. it does not matter who you are, but no one is above the law. He was found guilty on tax evasion and many other charges, and he should be in prison. If it turned out that Richard Dawkins was not paying his taxes, you would be clamoring for him to go to prison, and I would agree with you.

[rbarclay 0]

when religion tries to pass itself off as science or tries to violate the law for its own interests.

15748[/snapback]

I could not agree with you more on this statement. That is why the relgion of evolution should be taken from the school classrooms on the grounds of separation of church and state.

 

Bob Barclay

[Countic16 0]

well, I am not so sure i agree with him saying that they should throw the rest of the H*vind family in jail. however, CSE ministries is violating copyright law by doing this. (if you disagree, i would first take a look at the relevant legal code). As I have stated before, I do not particuoarily agree with the rational responders about their premise of eliminating theism. I personally have no problem with religion and have had a very good experience with Judaism, BUT, when religion tries to pass itself off as science or tries to violate the law for its own interests. And by the way, as to the incarceration of Kent and Jo H*vind- no one is above the law. it does not matter who you are, but no one is above the law. He was found guilty on tax evasion and many other charges, and he should be in prison. If it turned out that Richard Dawkins was not paying his taxes, you would be clamoring for him to go to prison, and I would agree with you.

15748[/snapback]

Actually, if/when secular government issues laws or commands that violate the Bible, Christians are not held to that secular law, and so, technically, are above it in those cases. Granted, I have not yet met a law in America that violates the Bible, so at this point in time it has little relevance. But, just as the right to bear arms was made to be a check against government as a form for the ability of the people to revolt and overthrow their government, I mean the last statement the same. I can think of some examples of near-future potential government/Bible conflicts. For example, the new hate-speech legislation that Kennedy is attempting to put through that would subject pastors to the possibility of being thrown in jail for condemning H*m*s*xuality (even without direct hate speech, or even a loving-kindness kind of condemnation). If such a hate-speech legislation were to pass Congress, and used in attempt to hush pulpit preeching against H*m*s*xuality....the pastor is, indeed, above the law. He might get wrongfully (immorally) thrown into jail and face persecution and some suffering....but ideologically, that pastor would still be above the law. God is above the law, God's Word is above the law, and a man who follows that Word is above the law, where ever that law contradicts God or his Word.

[digitalartist 1]

I could not agree with you more on this statement.  That is why the relgion of evolution should be taken from the school classrooms on the grounds of separation of church and state.

 

Bob Barclay

16260[/snapback]

Since evolution does not propose that one or more deities created everything and since we do not go to specified buildings to worship the deity of evolution then evolution can not be considered religion any more than the science of geology or mathematics can.

 

However since you bring up the separation of church and state, perhaps politicians should refrain from praying for rain while they are in office

[Springer 5]

Since evolution does not propose that one or more deities created everything and since we do not go to specified buildings to worship the deity of evolution then evolution can not be considered religion any more than the science of geology or mathematics can. 

 

However since you bring up the separation of church and state, perhaps politicians should refrain from praying for rain while they are in office

16531[/snapback]

A religion does not require specified buildings of worship or even a belief in God. If you believe in evolution with a passion to the point that it clouds your objectivity, then it is a religion.

[jason78 0]

A religion does not require specified buildings of worship or even a belief in God.  If you believe in evolution with a passion to the point that it clouds your objectivity, then it is a religion.

16536[/snapback]

I guess that makes me a "getting to work on time"ist. My parents were probably childist, and my teachers were homeworkist. My dogs must be humanist (or Jasonist ).

 

With such a wide definition of religion anything could be a religion in your eyes. But still you do not get people putting "Evolutionist" in the religion box in the census.

[Guest 92g]

With such a wide definition of religion anything could be a religion in your eyes.  But still you do not get people putting "Evolutionist" in the religion box in the census.

 

Anything can be a religion.... I bet if the offer was checked, about 5% of the population would select evolutionist.

 

Terry

[jason78 0]

Anything can be a religion....  I bet if the offer was checked, about 5% of the population would select evolutionist.

 

Terry

16592[/snapback]

On the British Census there is a box for Atheist, but thats not the same thing.

 

*Edit* Sorry for the one liner, just posting a fact.

[Dave 25]

Anything can be a religion....  I bet if the offer was checked, about 5% of the population would select evolutionist.

 

Terry

16592[/snapback]

Here's something interesting. It's from the latest "Great Courses" catalog. I've mentioned this catalog before in the "Speaking of Origins" thread. These courses are extremely well-done, with the highest level of professionalism, and given by the world's best professors in their fields. The courses are strictly secular, oriented toward liberalism, and definitely not friendly toward fundamental Christianity.

 

Their latest catalog features a series of courses on the "Great World Religions." Here is how they introduce the series:

 

"What is a religion?" and "What is a world religion?"

 

"Religion can be defined as a way of life organized around experiences and convictions concerning ultimate power.

 

"A world religion is one whose experience and convictions succeed in organizing a way of life beyond local, ethnic, or national boundaries."

 

I think, if you can respect an Emory University professor who has written hundreds of articles and 21 books, and who has received numerous teaching awards -- including being honored as a "Great Courses" intructor -- you'd be hard-pressed to deny that definition, and to deny that it defines the subset religion of evolution as part of the broader secular-humanist religion.

 

Dave

[rbarclay 0]

Since evolution does not propose that one or more deities created everything and since we do not go to specified buildings to worship the deity of evolution then evolution can not be considered religion any more than the science of geology or mathematics can. 

 

However since you bring up the separation of church and state, perhaps politicians should refrain from praying for rain while they are in office

16531[/snapback]

There is no need for evolution to have a deity to be considered a religion this is Webster's Dictionary Online definition of religion:

 

Main Entry: re·li·gion

 

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

 

If you notice definition number 4 does not mention or include a deity as a prerequisite to be a religion. Evolutionists have dogmatically held to their system of belief even when evidence does not support their beliefs. W.R. Thompson wrote an intro to The Origin of Species and this is what he states:

 

"This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."

 

That is they have put their religion (evolution) above everything and put down any one who dares to oppose them. They accomplish this not through scientific evidence but through nonscientific means, just a few examples: Guillermo Gonzalez, the pro-ID astronomer, was just denied tenure at Iowa State and Richard Steinberg subjected to discrimination and US office of Spacial Counsel agrees with him.

 

Evolution does have a godhead of time, mutations, and chance. Each of these members of their godhead have been found to be flawed beyond repair, however; the religious evolutionists faithfully stand their ground denying the flaws and insisting that their godhead is perfect. They claim it took billions of years to form what we see yet evidence is being brought forth to show that their god of time is fading into thousands of years. They also say some mutations are beneficial in that they deter malaria of course they leave out the part that this mutation causes sickle cell which is not very beneficial. In the 1960's the evolutionists held a conference (Winstar conference) to prove that the chance of evolution happening had the odds in favor of evolution. When they found that it was mathematically impossible for it to happen they tried to cover up and avoid the issue. However, they found this issue was too big to avoid so they are trying to dance around it claiming it is not important or irrelevant (just look at some of the posts in this forum to find this to be true).

 

Then one of their prophets Dr. Michael Ruse finally admitted that they were a religion, the following is from his article "How Evolution Became a Religion" found at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/index.html Dr. Ruse has also written and spoke openly on this subject much to the dismay of his fellow believers.

 

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

 

As you can see creationists are not he only ones saying evolution is a religion their own prophets and believers are saying the same thing. So on this premise evolution should be removed from the classrooms on the basis of separation of church and state.

 

Bob Barclay

[digitalartist 1]

A religion does not require specified buildings of worship or even a belief in God.  If you believe in evolution with a passion to the point that it clouds your objectivity, then it is a religion.

16536[/snapback]

 

Perhaps not but it does require devotional and/or ritual observances;

 

Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

If you notice evolution does not fit the definition of religion. Just calling it a religion does not make it so.

[digitalartist 1]

There is no need for evolution to have a deity to be considered a religion this is Webster's Dictionary Online definition of religion:

 

Main Entry: re·li·gion 

 

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

 

If you notice definition number 4 does not mention or include a deity as a prerequisite to be a religion. Evolutionists have dogmatically held to their system of belief even when evidence does not support their beliefs.  W.R. Thompson wrote an intro to The Origin of Species and this is what he states:

 

Then one of their prophets Dr. Michael Ruse finally admitted that they were a religion, the following is from his article "How Evolution Became a Religion" found at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/index.html Dr. Ruse has also written and spoke openly on this subject much to the dismay of his fellow believers.

 

Bob Barclay

16674[/snapback]

Definition 4 also indicates faith and that is the basis of all religions. They are all faith based whereas evolution is not faith based. That simple distinctioon makes all the difference in the world.

 

As for Dr. Ruse he did not say that Evolution was a religion, he said it was a philosophy. The definition of philosophy is the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. As you can see being a philosophy is not the same thing as being a religion. Both these points support my view better than yours.

[rbarclay 0]

Definition 4 also indicates faith and that is the basis of all religions.  They are all faith based whereas evolution is not faith based.  That simple distinctioon makes all the difference in the world.

 

As for Dr. Ruse he did not say that Evolution was a religion, he said it was a philosophy.  The definition of philosophy is the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.  As you can see being a philosophy is not the same thing as being a religion.  Both these points support my view better than yours.

16680[/snapback]

Evolution is a faith based religion any one who believes in it has to use faith since no one was around to record the events neither is it verifiable through tests. No has displayed undeniable proof of it it is all based on assumptions.

 

Dr. Ruse most certainly called evolution a religion he knows that it requires faith to hold to it. Dr. Ruse also made these statements at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Symposium (AAAS) in 1993:

 

"But I am coming here and saying, I think that philosophically that one should be sensitive to what I think history shows, namely, that evolution, just as much as religion - or at least, leave "just as much," let me leave that phrase - evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically."

 

He also states:

 

"I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which - it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law - but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things."

 

Also metaphysics, that is, philosophy is based on what is assumed to have happened, it is a person speaking what they believe but can not prove, that is, assumption.

 

Here is Webster's definition of philosophy:

 

Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy

 

1 a (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3): the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1)archaic : physical science (2): ethics c: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology

2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs

3 a: a system of philosophical concepts b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>

4 a: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b: calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

 

Notice number 2 states it is based on speculation not on observable evidence. This is exactly what evolution is pure speculation and nothing based on empirical, testable science. It is this fact that many scientists are leaving the religion of evolution because they have found it is not possible. Also number 4 claims philosophy is a basic belief of an groups or individuals.

 

Bob Barclay

[Job36:3 0]

Their latest catalog features a series of courses on the "Great World Religions." Here is how they introduce the series:

 

"What is a religion?" and "What is a world religion?"

 

"Religion can be defined as a way of life organized around experiences and convictions concerning ultimate power.

 

"A world religion is one whose experience and convictions succeed in organizing a way of life beyond local, ethnic, or national boundaries."

 

I think, if you can respect an Emory University professor who has written hundreds of articles and 21 books, and who has received numerous teaching awards -- including being honored as a "Great Courses" intructor -- you'd be hard-pressed to deny that definition, and to deny that it defines the subset religion of evolution as part of the broader secular-humanist religion.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the two definitions. I have never heard of the gentlemen who wrote the definitions, but he sounds like someone worthy of respect.

I can, however, see no connection between these definitions and evolution.

Evolution is not a way of life, nor does it concern ultimate power. I am puzzled as to why you would think it is one, or addresses the other.

 

Edit: I just noticed the date of the post I was responding to. My apologies for addressing an old one if such a practice is frowned upon here.

[A.Sphere 6]

A religion does not require specified buildings of worship or even a belief in God.  If you believe in evolution with a passion to the point that it clouds your objectivity, then it is a religion.

16536[/snapback]

 

There is a difference between a simplified definition one finds in the dictionary and definitions used by scholars. For example, to an anthropologist religion includes mythology and rituals that reflect that mythology. Religion is not just believing in something that isn’t able to be shown – that is faith. Faith is sometimes a part of religion but religion isn’t always a part of faith.

[rbarclay 0]

I guess that makes me a "getting to work on time"ist.  My parents were probably childist, and my teachers were homeworkist.  My dogs must be humanist (or Jasonist ). 

 

With such a wide definition of religion anything could be a religion in your eyes.  But still you do not get people putting "Evolutionist" in the religion box in the census.

16558[/snapback]

This is the definition Merriam Webster gives for religion:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

 

religion

 

1 a: the state of a religious (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3: scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

 

Pay particular attention to the third and fourth means that is where the evolutionist fit in beautifully. Also notice it does not mention specified buildings of worship or even a belief in God.

 

Bob Barclay