Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hear Evolutionists/Atheists Themselves on Evil & Ethics (like Rape for Instance)
Religio-Poltical Talk (RPT) ^ | 11-21-2011 | Papa Giorgio

Posted on 11/21/2011 9:46:01 AM PST by SeanG200

A new audio added to my mix of videos in regards to evolutionary ethics and rape. Richard Dawkins in an honest moment.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Skeptics/Seekers
KEYWORDS: atheism; barker; dawkins; ethics; evil; morality; rape; wolpert
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

1 posted on 11/21/2011 9:46:04 AM PST by SeanG200
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeanG200

The word “belief” stands out in the discussion, and Dawkins doesn’t seem to pick up on it ... and note that beliefs belong in church.


2 posted on 11/21/2011 9:54:55 AM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

What do you mean OldNavy?


3 posted on 11/21/2011 9:58:26 AM PST by SeanG200 ("The man who does not read good books is no better than the man who can't." ~ Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
The Bible of the Atheists is Darwin's tome, originally titled, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

The title explains everything you need to know about why communists and atheists have such a low regard for life. Except their own, of course, because they have "evolved" to the highest level. The rest of us are throwbacks.

4 posted on 11/21/2011 9:59:39 AM PST by Westbrook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
The title explains everything you need to know about why communists and atheists have such a low regard for life.

I'm skeptical of anyone who tells me "this is all you need to know".

It always seems to turn out to be "this is all I want you to know", and there was quite a bit more to it than they were telling me.

5 posted on 11/21/2011 10:05:25 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeanG200
The loaded question about rape contains the word "belief," and Dawkins' response was .... "You can say that."

The fact is that the questioner could say that, did say that, and Dawkins' was simply polite.

Dawkins passed on debating beliefs.

6 posted on 11/21/2011 10:16:47 AM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeanG200

Well, rape has been treated differently in different places, and different times, even considering only Christian countries.


7 posted on 11/21/2011 10:29:57 AM PST by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Good point. As an atheist who`s often blasted for being pro-life, I can say that those who say `all you need to know about atheists` are no different from the atheists who say `all you need to know about Christians.` Both sides do themselves no favors with such silly reductions. Knowing the details and the full mindsets is the key to true understanding, even with one who believes something you don`t. [Shockingly, atheists are as varied as Christians in terms of their individual beliefs—moreso, since being a non-believer in God means one could believe in any number of things a stranger couldn`t presume just by hearing one is an atheist.]


8 posted on 11/21/2011 10:30:52 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Obama: The stupid person`s idea of a smart person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
Darwins' final sentence in his masterpiece reads as follows.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

9 posted on 11/21/2011 10:31:23 AM PST by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeanG200
"Hear Evolutionists/Atheists Themselves on Evil & Ethics (like Rape for Instance)" Bump for later. Already, iI have tolerated my niece in her attempt to explain to me how I took religion too far and needed to, in her text, "GET OVER YOURSELF"(because I post religious articles on my facebook page). She explained how I should post "normal" things that people aren't offended to read. And how religion is simply man concocted to oppress people. That's enough atheism for me today.
10 posted on 11/21/2011 10:57:08 AM PST by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeanG200; betty boop; marron; Alamo-Girl; metmom; xzins; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; ...
I don’t believe that there are any axiological claims which are absolutely true, except within the context of one person’s opinion.

Does this include the axiological claim that there are no axiological claims that are absolutely true?

They’re at it again BEEP!

11 posted on 11/21/2011 11:00:54 AM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
The title explains everything you need to know...

LOL, really? Because I'm quite sure "all you needed to know" you found on some creationist website or tract that absurdly and quite incorrectly focused on the word "races" and twisted the title into some Nazi/Racist festishist dream.

Of course, since that misinformation is not "all you need to know," I'll simply note that "races" in mid-19th century biological terms meant, quite clearly for those of us who have read and studied such things, "species." In fact, Darwin focused on the "races" of barnacles and worms far more than he did on primate evolution.

Now go forth and ignore this for the 800th time you've been told it.
12 posted on 11/21/2011 11:06:43 AM PST by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Jesus invented evolution when he said “You MUST be born again”..
I suppose humans CAN evolve.. from a worm to a butterfly..

Marx said... why evolve... embrace being a worm..
So socialists learned to be Tape Worms on an economy.. parasites.. intestinal malefactors..


13 posted on 11/21/2011 11:18:08 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeanG200
Logically Darwinian morals can only be focused on individual reproduction and self-promotion. What else matters in a strictly Darwinian world?

The perception of altruism might be useful, but only the perception, and only to the point when its not useful.

Darwinian morals means smothering grandma when no one is looking, and then crying loudly.

14 posted on 11/21/2011 11:49:20 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; betty boop; ...

Atheists and evos ping


15 posted on 11/21/2011 12:31:47 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Caterpillar to butterfly change is not evolution,
though you might find some evos that point to this as “evidence”...

It is “metamorphosis”, and a very passable analogy for being born again.


16 posted on 11/21/2011 1:10:16 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Marx said... why evolve... embrace being a worm..

Good concept (chuckle), a sound understanding. Why bother with issues of ethics or morality, when you have scientific texts on theories and hypothesizes as your guide.

17 posted on 11/21/2011 1:17:58 PM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Atheists and evos ping

Is that anything like Dungeons and Dragons? (grin)

18 posted on 11/21/2011 1:22:47 PM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MrB

[ Caterpillar to butterfly change is not evolution, ]

Sure it is.. evolution is not evolution...
Nothing has been proven to have evolved.. in the classic sense..
Vegetarian finches becoming meat eaters is not evolution..
And Wolves becoming Labrador retrievers is not evolution..
Neanderthal’s becoming Homo Sapiens didn’t happen either.. most likely..

IF the third human on this planet did not come from two others..
THEN; bodacious Yarn must be constructed.. and it was..
Explaining where the third human came from becomes then the primary problem..

Then Science Fiction must be invented because Sci-Fi MUST be very logical.. else whats the point..
Reality need not be logical to humans at all.. it has nothing to prove..

Is science “fiction”?....
Well some of it is... else relativity and quantum doodads would correlate.. they don’t..
Humans have a hell of a time mouthing “I just don’t know”...

The third human on this planet came from TWO OTHERS....
OK.. there I said it..


19 posted on 11/21/2011 1:41:00 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet; SeanG200; Westbrook; YHAOS

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Dawkins “masterpiece” is not empiricism but Science Fiction Mythology. Dawkins has cleverly spun a scientistic tale about deified Life, magic(Life’s several powers breathed into a few forms), Life’s “creative power”-—evolution and above all, Dawkins religiously held “belief” in the “inventions of his own imagination:”

Imagine There’s No God.....Only Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2787047/posts

Those who debunk supernaturalism invariably substitute something similarly transcendent, as Dawkins has done.

As for belief, Dawkins obviously “believes” his own inventions else he’d not publish them for the edification of his followers.


20 posted on 11/21/2011 4:06:15 PM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet; SeanG200; Westbrook; YHAOS

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Dawkins “masterpiece” is not empiricism but Science Fiction Mythology. Dawkins has cleverly spun a scientistic tale about deified Life, magic(Life’s several powers breathed into a few forms), Life’s “creative power”-—evolution and above all, Dawkins religiously held “belief” in the “inventions of his own imagination:”

Imagine There’s No God.....Only Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2787047/posts

Those who debunk supernaturalism invariably substitute something similarly transcendent, as Dawkins has done.

As for belief, Dawkins obviously “believes” his own inventions else he’d not publish them for the edification of his followers.


21 posted on 11/21/2011 4:07:03 PM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Check my post 9 again.

I was quoting the master himself, Charles Darwin.

And ... You should know that Darwin’s theory has been brilliantly reinforced -- updated -- based on modern technology. That new book is titled “Darwin’s Ghost”... by Steve Jones.

22 posted on 11/21/2011 4:39:55 PM PST by OldNavyVet (Check)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

“I was quoting the master himself, Charles Darwin.”

It’s commonly believed that Darwin discovered the “law” of evolution. He did not. Evolution predates Darwin by thousands of years.

Contemporary anthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, longtime director of the American Museum of Natural History traced evolution to ancient Greece. Osborn said:

“When I began the search for (the roots of) evolutionary theory...I was led back to the Greek natural philosophers and I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated...as far back as the seventh century B.C.” (The Long War Against God, Henry Morris,p. 216)

Greece inherited its evolutionary cosmogony from ancient Babylonia and Egypt. This means that in light of the fact that Darwinism hales from Greece and Greeces cosmogony hales from Babylonia, modern evolutionary naturalists have been teaching a revamped, revised version of ancient Greek and Babylonian cosmogony.

Thus “modern” evolution evolved from the Babylonian/Egyptian spiritual concept that describes the transmigration of a divine spark or bit of soul over time and in many different bodies to a mechanism that causes life to incrementally change over time in many different bodies.

In its spiritual pantheist conception, everything is god while in its Darwinian secular-materialist conception, nothing is God since He has been explained away. Each in its own way however, deifies man.


23 posted on 11/21/2011 5:26:00 PM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
It’s commonly believed that Darwin discovered the “law” of evolution. He did not. Evolution predates Darwin by thousands of years.

Page 298 of Jones’ book ("Darwin’s Ghost") states … “The Origin makes no mention of “evolution,” a word whose sense has gone full circle since it began. As Cicero so memorably put it: Quid poetarum evolution voluptatis affert” -- “What pleasure does the reading of the poets provide!” The word was first used in biology to describe the changes in shape of an embryo as it developed. Not until much later did “evolution” begin to suggest the gradual transformation of one form into another.”

I could go on, but ….

24 posted on 11/21/2011 6:16:58 PM PST by OldNavyVet (Check)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

LOLOL! Thanks for the ping, dear YHAOS!


25 posted on 11/21/2011 9:10:46 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

“The word was first used in biology to describe the changes in shape of an embryo as it developed. Not until much later did “evolution” begin to suggest the gradual transformation of one form into another.”

Spirited: The word was most definitely used to describe the spiritual evolution of the Sun-god Ra. Upon translating an ancient Egyptian papyri, Egyptologist Wallace Budge discovered it to be an evolutionary cosmogony entitled “The Book of Knowing the Evolutions of Ra.”

Ra describes himself as evolving out of Nu-—primordial matter.

The much older Enuma Elish is a similar evolutionary cosmogony.

Fundamentally, there are only two cosmogonies: evolution of life from death (primordial matter) and special creation of life from Life-—God the Father Almighty.

To choose the evolutionary cosmogony is to choose death. To choose special creation is to choose life. Thus Jesus said, “Choose life that you may live.”


26 posted on 11/22/2011 2:55:57 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Fundamentally, there are only two cosmogonies: evolution of life from death (primordial matter) and special creation of life from Life-—God the Father Almighty.

What is the purpose of conflating evolution with abiogenesis?

27 posted on 11/22/2011 3:11:42 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Spirited: The word was most definitely used to describe the spiritual evolution of the Sun-god Ra. Upon translating an ancient Egyptian papyri, Egyptologist Wallace Budge discovered it to be an evolutionary cosmogony entitled “The Book of Knowing the Evolutions of Ra.”

So Wallace Budge translating some ancient symbols, chose the word "evolution" to be the English language equivalent of those symbols, and you interpret this as proof the ancient Egyptions used the word "evolution".

If we aren't any better than that at analyzing political claims, we're screwed.

28 posted on 11/22/2011 5:33:34 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“What is the purpose of conflating evolution with abiogenesis?”

Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life supposedly evolved and/or emerged from inorganic (dead) matter through natural processes. In other words, life comes from death.

Dead matter speaks of the “what.” Evolution speaks of the mechanical “how.”


29 posted on 11/22/2011 5:57:44 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life supposedly evolved and/or emerged from inorganic (dead) matter through natural processes. In other words, life comes from death.

Life is a pre-condition of the theory evolution. There is nothing in that theory that is applicable to inorganic (dead) matter. That is purely the realm of abiogenesis.

What is the purpose of conflating evolution and abiogenesis?

30 posted on 11/22/2011 6:09:15 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

You have it wrong. If we are incapable of identifying, analyzing and protecting ourselves from corrupt worldviews then this nation is lost, for it was not founded on scientistic myths claiming that life comes from death but on the self-evident truths and principles found only in the Bible.


31 posted on 11/22/2011 6:15:26 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
You have it wrong. If we are incapable of identifying, analyzing and protecting ourselves from corrupt worldviews then this nation is lost, for it was not founded on scientistic myths claiming that life comes from death but on the self-evident truths and principles found only in the Bible.

There is no salvation in creative semantics.

32 posted on 11/22/2011 6:21:58 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“Life is a pre-condition of the theory evolution”

Spirited: Spare us the equivocations. All evolutionists of Darwin’s time recognized that Darwin’s “pre-condition” resulted from his inability to account for life. Therefore they marched under the banner of “spontaneous generation,” which simply means that life spontaneously (magically) generated itself from nothing-—life emerged from death, in other words.


33 posted on 11/22/2011 6:22:15 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Spirited: Spare us the equivocations. All evolutionists of Darwin’s time recognized that Darwin’s “pre-condition” resulted from his inability to account for life. Therefore they marched under the banner of “spontaneous generation,” which simply means that life spontaneously (magically) generated itself from nothing-—life emerged from death, in other words.

Do you really think you're going to convince people using an argument based on the premise that you can read the minds of people who've been dead for decades?

34 posted on 11/22/2011 6:37:36 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You still haven't answered the question.

What is the purpose of conflating abiogenesis and evolution?

You obviously understand the difference, yet choose to continue to argue as if there isn't one.

35 posted on 11/22/2011 6:40:25 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
What is the purpose of conflating evolution with abiogenesis?

As a materialist, physicalist, darwinist it seems to me that the question you ask regarding 'purpose' seems unintelligible, because the evolutionist states, Dawkins states, that evolution is due to purposeless changes, undirected in nature.Dawkins makes clear that these processes a blind, pitiless, and pointless. So as a devotee of Dawkins your question seemss senseless. If all is matter and energy, and there is no timeless, transcendent purposeful God, even if the question could approach logic from an atheist, why would it matter if there is, or is not, a purpose.

The reflex for the materialist to put the question of abiogenesis apart from the quesitons of the metaphysical belief in evolution is a preemptive attempt to avoid the hard question. Abiogeneis, which science has repeatedly disproved as possible, is the supreme problem for the materialist darwinist, and one which they know is inexplicable in a physicialist worldview, thus the attempt to innoculate themselves from having to address that elephant in the darwinian discussion room.

36 posted on 11/22/2011 6:43:49 AM PST by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Why the assumption I am a devotee of Dawkins?

In a discussion of semantics, where words have specific meanings it is important to maintain the distinctions for the discussion to be coherent.

Can the argument against atheism not tolerate maintaining those distinctions?

37 posted on 11/22/2011 6:51:20 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I agree with you. In a discussion where words have meaning, what is the meaning of ascribing the word 'PURPOSE' to what evolutionist (Dawkins in particular) say is purposeless? But since you ask, what would you say is the purpose of evolution, as evolutionist define it, in all of its weltanschuaang?

I would ask you the quesiton, in a discussion of semantics (rather than a discussion of the evolution of life and living organisms) why the evolutionist seeks to avoid a beginning of the subject...first life....giving rise to the next, then the next, then the next, as the metaphysics declare? Well rather than making the artificial distinction to create a zone of comfort for having no answer to my question....answer the question. You and I know that the evolutionist has no answer. They ascribe First Life a a miracle, an artlcle of faith, which, at best they prognosticate will, at some later date, science will provide an orderly, atheistic, physicalist answer. I simply don't have enough faith to be be an atheist. And I do not have the hubris, as organized science does, to proclaim the parameters of legitimate debate and make the proclaimation that 'science' deals in objective, emperic truth and theism deals in subjective metaphysics....those are our rules...and you cannot, and we will not accept, questions outside the parameters of what we say are the parameters.....get used to it....we will accept only questions we want to answer. So, in answer to your first question the purpose of darwinism seems to be to pursuade the public there is no purposeful, meaningful intelligence which transcends the natural world, which implies two important limitations on those who require consistency from the naturalists, science inquiry. First, it precludes inquiry as to all possibilities to explain the phenomenon, restricting only to naturalism as explicative. And, second, naturalists may not falsify elements of darwinism until and unless they provide a scientific alternative. This is required at all times because they must have a unified theory at their disposal to prevent any rival philosophical explaination to prevent the establishing a toehold on science. Thus the idiocy of punctuated equilibrium, panspermia, and others to be seriously considered under the imprimateur of science....yes, yes, that's right....the aliens did it. And so it goes. No explaination for the origin of the universe. No explaination for first life. No explaination for consciousness. No explaination for any universal,varient, abstract entity...because they were not 'preconfigured' by the evolution, not only of life, but of the universe. So, cornered with a question from a theist, (from wence did first life come), the evolutionist screeches...TIME OUT! KINGS X! FOUL BALL!....Those question are off limits. Those questions are unfair. Those questions will not be tolerated. Yet in the materialist worldview 'fairness' does not, cannot, exist. There is not objective right or wrong. 'Ought' has no meaning in the materialist world.

Metaphysical darwinism is an idea which cannot allow its own metaphysical reality, so, the darwinist denies it as a philosophical entity, claims victory in its error, and says to all who would question its validity...you may not ask, and we will not answer your questions which we cannot answer, which we wish not to entertain as existing in our exclusive scientifically self described domain....In the words of the famous Samual B. Goldwin.....'those questions are included OUT!' Science will allow what we will allow!!!! and all others need not apply!

To quote Stephen Gould, "Science and religion are separate but equal in importance. because science treats factual reality and religion struggles with human morality". That is a summation of natualistic metaphysics in a nutshell. The power to define terms such as 'factual reality' makes it intolerable to ask question which science says does not reside in that domain....and therefore we (darwinist, materialist,physicalist,evolutionist science) refuse to address such nonsence, or if we stoop to address it, we will do it with derision, sarcasm, and impudence...."You are asking questions outside the realm of factual reality and your question is therefore meaningless". Kind of like the aid to president clinton,Paul Begala..."Stroke of the pen,...law of the land....cool". Well, our questions will not go away. Our desire to understand Truth will not recede. Our inquiries will continue to press the notions which theist find fundamental to understanding that truth and simply ask the materialist step outside of their self prescribed reality to consider our questions.

38 posted on 11/22/2011 7:55:43 AM PST by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; tacticalogic
From Will Durant’s (“The Story of Civilization,” Volume 2, page 355) opening words about a Greek named Empedocles,

“Idealism offends the senses, materialism offends the soul; the one explains everything but the world, the other everything but life. To merge these half-truths it was necessary to find some dynamic principle that could mediate between structure and growth, between things and thought. Anaxagoras sought such a principle in a cosmic mind; Empedocles sought it in the inherent forces that made for evolution.”

39 posted on 11/22/2011 7:59:25 AM PST by OldNavyVet (Check)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
In a discussion where words have meaning, what is the meaning of ascribing the word 'PURPOSE' to what evolutionist (Dawkins in particular) say is purposeless?

I'm afraid I will need a little more context to answer this question. Where exactly was the word "PURPOSE" ascribed to anything Dawkins said?

40 posted on 11/22/2011 8:09:13 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
“Idealism offends the senses, materialism offends the soul; the one explains everything but the world, the other everything but life. To merge these half-truths it was necessary to find some dynamic principle that could mediate between structure and growth, between things and thought. Anaxagoras sought such a principle in a cosmic mind; Empedocles sought it in the inherent forces that made for evolution.”

Interesting. What's the ancient Greek word for "evolution"?

41 posted on 11/22/2011 8:18:41 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Metaphysical darwinism is an idea which cannot allow its own metaphysical reality.

Wow! Two oxymorons ... in the same sentence.

42 posted on 11/22/2011 8:33:59 AM PST by OldNavyVet (Check)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
What's the ancient Greek word for "evolution"?

My Navy days had me in Greece. It's not a "Western" area. Very little is readable.

Nonetheless ... I found this from a Google search ...

evolution ---> "The word is: εξελιξη/ekseliksi (pronounced as: e'kseliksi) It comes from the words: εξ (meaning from)+ ελισσομαι (meaning move/manoeuvre among)"

43 posted on 11/22/2011 9:07:06 AM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Wow! Two oxymorons ... in the same sentence.

In what way and in what sense?

44 posted on 11/22/2011 9:52:22 AM PST by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Read your post #30.


45 posted on 11/22/2011 9:56:17 AM PST by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
"Purpose" is not ascribed to anything Dawkins said in that post. It is ascribed to the conflation of the terms "evolution" and "abiogenesis", which was done by someone else.

I'm having difficulty believing you did not already know that.

46 posted on 11/22/2011 10:13:56 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Metaphysical darwinism is an idea which cannot allow its own metaphysical reality.

Wow! Two oxymorons ... in the same sentence.

In what way and in what sense?

Connecting the word "metaphysical" to either darwinism or reality is subjectively derogatory.

Darwinism and reality are factual, non-spiritual matters.

47 posted on 11/22/2011 10:33:22 AM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet; tacticalogic

“Anaxagoras sought such a principle in a cosmic mind; Empedocles sought it in the inherent forces that made for evolution.”

Spirited: Greek nature philosophers were initiates of the occult Mysteries, thus Anaxagoras and Empedocles were debating the nature of the universe, in particular the dialectic of form-matter with emphasis on the concept of the continuity of being, an idea basic to Greek thought and religion.

For Egyptian thought, god and man were of a common nature and alike products of a common substance, called Nu by the Sun-god Ra. Both gods and men evolved out of Nu. The Egyptians were monophysites: many men and many gods, but all ultimately of one nature.

Returning to the Greeks, the one-substance was known as Chaos rather than Nu. And out of Chaos comes the two-in-one, the androgyn, and according to Plato in the “Symposium” out of the splitting of the androgyn came the two sexes.

Human nature was originally ‘one’ (androgynous) and as the one-substance (Chaos) is asexual, then human nature must become one again. Hence the truest symbol of perfection is the hermaphrodite, for which reason the “bisexuality of the philosophers amounts to asexuality...” (Hermaphrodite: Myths and Rites of the Bisexual Figure in Classical Antiquity, Marie Delacourt, p. 69)

The form-matter dialectic of Greek culture exemplified by Anaxagorus and Empedocles came to be as a result of long development.

For one school, the one-substance (the world of nature) was matter-—of hard-reality, atoms,and void.

For the other, the one-substance is ‘form’ or ideas and universals. Divinity resides in men, an idea held by Aristotle, Plato and Empedocles.

With the first school, matter is given to change and flux; with the second, form is timeless, unchanging, eternal.

Reality, the real world, was thus made up of two antithetical,irreconciable elements: matter and mind.

If matter is stressed, then god or gods, spirit, soul, and mind (and belief, OldNavyVet) are reduced to matter and the movement of chemicals in the brain. Man is nothing more than a highly evolved animal; god (or gods)is reduced to the unseen force behind evolution, gravity and natural laws.

Cynicism, scoffing, sneering, ridicule, despair, sexual anarchy, lawlessness and cultural collapse are the consequences.

If form is stressed, then mysticism becomes man’s way of contact with the one-substance on the one hand and escape from the false world of matter on the other, for mysticism reduces the real world to illusion. The one-substance absorbs reality and condemns individuality as unhealthy separation. Irrationalism and totalitarianism are the consequences.

The mystical contempt of the material world has as its counterpart the materialistic contempt of God, spirit, soul, moral law and meaning as subjective, relative and irrelevant.

For both schools of thought, the one-substance is the “what” and evolution is the mechanical “how.”

Only the supernatural Creator can link mind and matter and give meaning to both.


48 posted on 11/22/2011 11:44:08 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet; Texas Songwriter

“Metaphysical darwinism is an idea which cannot allow its own metaphysical reality.”

Spirited: Not oxymorons ONV, but clear, concise, irrefutable logic. Even Karl Popper agrees with Texas Songwriter:

Imagine There’s No God.....Only Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2787047/posts


49 posted on 11/22/2011 11:55:16 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Connecting the word "metaphysical" to either darwinism or reality is subjectively derogatory. Darwinism and reality are factual, non-spiritual matters.

I am going to make this as brief as possible and, hopefully, convivial. Have you seen evolution happen. The answer is, NO. Darwin did not see evolution either. What he did see is what he believed to be evidence of homologies and change. The notion of the tautology of survival of the fittest, though acclaimed as useful to explain the mechanism of selection, is meaningless, or more specifically, circular reasoning...of course the fittest survive...that is axiomatic and has no place in the discussion. So based upon evidence Darwin, by induction, is a matter of logic, not science, and the notion of evolution, as a theory derived by a nonscientific methodology, is a product of a metaphysical tool, not a tool of physics, chemistry, or laws of matter. The derivitive is a product a nonphysical, invarient, universal abstract concept....logic. The editors of the preemeninent science journal Nature Darwinism is both metaphysical and unfalsifiable, conceding that Popper was correct in his writings, but lamely added, that though Popper was 'technically correct', that"the theory of evolution is not completely without empirical support, and metaphysical theories are not necessarily a bad thing." (The entire story of the controversy at the British Natural History Museum is found in the editorial pages of Nature got 1980-1982, volumns 288-291 p.208 in Vol 288; vol. 289, p.106,742; vol. 292,p. 403.)

THe Naturearticles not only affirmed that Darwinism is metaphysical in reality, not scientific, but is sustained only by faith. The birthplace of Darwin, himself, and promoter of Darwinism has provided a reasoned, logical explication of what Darwinism actually is.

So, I repeat with certitude that "Metaphysical Darwinism is a idea which cannot allow it own metaphysical reality." Thus, your superficial analysis with an endpoint declaration of fact, which is not factual, and acclaimation of reality, an invarient, universal, abstract entity which is neither material, physical, and a concept which no honest darwinist, physicalist, materialist can explain using their own worldview that all there is, is matter and energy. These are those who declare that theist live in the shallow end of the pool and have nothing to add to the discussion. The evolutionist make no effort to distinguish between the "fact" of evolution and the Darwinian theory of evolution.

50 posted on 11/22/2011 11:56:05 AM PST by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson