betsy

And speaking of D'Souza, what a timely and appropriate question to ask on this thread... Can we really be moral without God? Really?

Next so-called "difficult" question that will be brought forth... What's the difference between a very late-term fetus and an incapacitated and dependent person (regardless of age)?: And the truth is: not very much! D'Souza's piece was published in a Catholic site...so what! The issue at hand is still the same.

There is indeed God, Bloodyminded....that's why I'm still patient and in fact will explain this one more time. I know what you mean. Okay, let's trace our way back to the smoking gun. I told Dre to "say hello to her uncle." She replied by saying "my uncle is the snake and hers is the chimp." We're both talking "uncles." We're clearly talking "relations." Then Jonsa came on the scene, he quoted Dre and boomed: He was the first one to introduce descendant. He associated "uncles" to "descendants." You quoted Jonsa. Instead of correcting Jonsa that Dre was talking about being related to a chimp....you said Dre was just being humorous and knows he didn't descend from the chimp! Granted you were just reiterating that we didn't descend from the chimp, but by not correcting Jonsa there was that implied non-difference in meaning between "related" and "descended." So why would I think there's a big difference in scientific meaning between ancestors, relations and descendants? That you could get boomed at for using the wrong term? That it's blasphemy....sacrilegious to use the wrong term! Whew, good thing it was Dre who took the heat. The only ones who mentioned the word descended were Jonsa and you. Anyway, reprimand Jonsa! He started this. And you too - you're not exactly off the hook you know. You went along with him.

I must specify that pertaining to Intelligent Design, I also include the universe.

It might've started that way, based on "not knowing," but now it's more based on atheistic faith. That's thanks to the likes of Dawkins, Stenger et al. Otherwise, if the goal is to know.....why dismiss the possibility of Intelligent Design? Evolution is not a fact. How can that be when there are also other scientists who find the explanation full of gaps and therefore unlikely! The reason why so many people believe in it is because that's what they've been taught in school. We all know why it's being passed off as a fact! It's because of secularism!

Luke 9:5 "And whoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them." Matt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 1 Tim 6:5 useless wranglings [fn] of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself. [fn

If evolution (which is based on faith - atheistic faith) is being taught in school, then why shouldn't the opposing view of Intelligent Design be not included too? Other scientists have reluctantly admitted to being stumped by evolution, and are thinking outside the box! Only those scientists who remain firmly shackled to their faith prefer to be close-minded! After all, as you yourself acknowledged: Therefore, in your view they're standing on the same ground. We, of course see the hopeless fiasco of evolution (which up to the present time is being desperately propped up by fill-in-the-gaps hypotheses and assumtions of all kinds!) They won't scrap it and throw in the towel. Because of their stubborn belief! The only reason that evolution is still being taught in school (and Intelligent Design is not) is due to the secularists in the system and their anti-Christian ideology! If there's any theory that deserves to be presented in schools, it's Intelligent Design! So we deserve same air-time!

Christians are supposed to spread the good news. But that doesn't mean Christians have to force or coersce anyone into belief. In fact, Jesus Himself instructed the Apostles not to waste their time on those who would not listen.

I very much agree. And we all know it's a difficult road to follow - the straight and narrow. The present day Christians who "actually walk the talk" are more impressive since their faith is based entirely on faith alone! The early Christians in the days of the Acts had seen and experienced miracles. I do not mean to diminish the faith of the early Christians, but just to show how much harder it is to maintain faith nowadays with no clear evidence similar to miracles that were seen in the days of Christ, what more when we're bombarded with all kinds of worldly distractions/temptations.

I don't think the writer is saying that these New Atheists are evangelizing. He's exposing their agenda - based on what they personally explained to him. They're going to take on religion - specifically the Christian religion - in the most offensive manner (which includes dis-respect for one's religious belief). The writer is showing the New Atheists' extremism. Those three are not your ordinary "handful" of authors and intellectuals. Dawkins is a popular scientist and staunch evolutionist. He is a poster boy for atheism and evolution. Dennett is well-known too as a philosopher (?) who gets into debates. All of them have authored numerous popular books. They have a considerable amount of influence. I suspect you have not actually read the whole article or even the excerpts which I've posted....because your response here doesn't jibe with the article. Either that or you're in denial.

Haven't you noticed? Right under his title? "Crusade" was the term used by the author. It's his description of his article, based on his observations and in-depth interviews with Dawkins, Harris and Dennett.

I guess it must be in one of your posts that I've tuned out...or rapidly scrolled over....since you do tend to end up ranting! Sorry, even though there's still an afterlife that awaits....there's still the present life to live. I don't have time to waste on rants and adhominems.

3/4? Yes, the memes, the evolutionary theory (again)...but you forgot to include the Angelus Temple, the paranoia of Dennett, the personal comments/observations of the writer for each of this founders... And you say 3/4? Anyway, that is moot now. The length of the copied article is not the issue....unless of course, you want to make it into an issue. Yet you rebuke my style of presenting an argument. Why does it have to be as you say by way of presentation? Who sez? Is there only one way to present or introduce an argument? Are we going to let ourselves be confined in a box....not wanting to think or look or be creative enough to go beyond it? Are we going to be close-minded as well in ways we present our topics? I'm sure I had to repeat myself more than a dozen times...and yes it could get annoying. My solution to this is to post the link to my previous statements if I do not feel to repeat myself anymore. But I am not so conceited enough to assume that everyone reads everything I post, much less remembers everything!

deleted. double posting.

I find that Oleg and Bloodyminded have seen and understood some of the crucial points in this article.

Just to clarify that this is not the entirety of the article. These are excerpts. The actual article is 7 pages long.

Please explain. I'm lost as to what you mean by this.

So you have not read this particular article otherwise you'd know the whole article is 7 pages long. I did not give any comment on purpose. I've done this before in other topics I've started. I was waiting for the reaction to the article. Sometimes the responses you get can take the discussion to another interesting route. My question: why will you comment without reading it?

Bonam, WIP, Bloodyminded and Oleg, thanks for the input. Yes I've read the article (7 pages long - which I stumbled upon accidentally), and posted excerpts from it that support the argument/point that I'm going to make. It is 5 years old, and I guess it's safe to assume that at the time the article was written, the New Atheist Movement had just come out. I have no problems with non-believers or skeptics in general. I may engage in a discussion (although I've never did so outside of the forum online) and explain the core of my faith as a Christian - which is only sensible when people are engaged in discussions. During my time here at the forum, I am amazed at the sheer vehemence and rabid hostilities by some posters to any Christians that speak about or mention faith in any discussions. In almost all of them, I saw the same kind of language being used, the same tone of ridicule and contempt....and it's only upon reading this said article have I learned about this new movement, the New Atheist. In that interview, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett declared war. It is very enlightening to see that Harris or was it Dennett who even wrote a book that included how-to techniques in dealing with believers, especially Christians. The example given in the book about the world's reaction to Islamist terrorists - I've seen that technique applied here in this forum several times in most, if not all Islamist terrorist threads. Reading the article - the way Dennett talked about the new atheists' prayer, their own sabbath day etc, Harris' "religion of reason," the rationale of Dawkins why believing in the afterlife poses the gravest threat - gives a chilling insight. These men have gone mad.

Deleted. Moved.

Like as if Lennon's voice was anything phenomenal. Let's face it....Lennon's got an ordinary voice! You should go to Karaoke bars. Without the popularity of the Beatles, how likely you think Lennon will be a sensation? Of course it didn't hurt that the message of IMAGINE is every stoned secularists' fantasy world. With a little lesson, Harper will just be another Lennon.

I especially like the part when the girl didn't know the next lyrics to the next verse, Harper tried to help her....but she playfully sorta slapped him on the arm and said something like, "it's your turn now." That this 12 year old girl looks so comfy with Harper is indeed excellent phot-op.

Insightful interviews with Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. Excerpts from.... Contributing editor Gary Wolf ([email protected]) wrote about emergencywarning technology in issue 13.12. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html?pg=7&topic=atheism&topic_set=

Ha-ha-ha! Oh yes it is! Complete with a choir....the Adhominem doo-wap choir! ha-ha-ha! Good! You acknowledge evolution is not a fact! True. And they could not figure it out! That's the point, isn't it? And like my sources claim, they are now considering Intelligent Design. No. Others' understanding is getting better and more advanced. They're thinking and looking outside the box! Yours - and those who belong to your sect - however, remain close-minded. Babblings and deflections! Look in the mirror! Once upon a time, there was an ugly frog. He found time. Time kissed him and he magically transformed into man. or better yet... From fish to amphibean to reptiles to mammals. Where is the bloody evidence? Of course those desperate to fill in the gaps say...well the evolution happened at a fast rate. I guess that must be true since it shows the religious atheists - evidenced by their behaviour in mature discussions, and their way of reasoning - are actually the missing link between ape and God's religious man!

deleted. Double posting.