waldo Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 people! ... Alta4ever has just as much right to his Creationist belief as does Harper's Minister of Faith Based Science & Technology. So long as that Creationist belief doesn't interfere with Alta4ever's ability to post rationally on MLW, we should reserve judgment on... err... ok, scratch that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) Whatever you say...waldorf Edited March 20, 2009 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 As I have in the post before I am not a "creationist" I don't beleive that the universe, and life just popped into existance and 6000 years ago. That is only one version of creationism called Young Earth Creationism, that doesn't prove that you don't fall into one of the other brands. I have no problem with the idea that apes and humans shared/share a common link in evolution.But I do beleive that every evolutionary step that life has taken has gods hand in it. (for some reason you have a problem with this) So you believe in theistic evolution! But just like the Intelligent Designers, you still need evidence for some supernatural force guiding evolution. And that also raises philosophical problems if you combine the traditional version of an interventionist God with evolution by natural selection, since the Earth's history is billions of years of animals and plants struggling against each other for survival, sometimes flourishing, only to eventually be wiped out by extinction events, some of them like one that occurred 250 million years ago, almost wiped out all complex multicellular life on earth and in the oceans. Why would the creator described in the Bible use this method to make a world? It's easy to see how it could naturally evolve since life simulator computer programs start to diverge into predators and prey species without any prior instructions in the program. But I'll leave it up to the believers to figure out how it can fit together in one package. I was an atheist, it 15 years for me to find god. And many people move in the opposite direction. I tried a number of different versions of Christianity and even explored other religions before I decided that they weren't answering the questions that I wanted answers for. You are merely looking to smear people of faith. I thought he said he's a Catholic; don't they qualify as people of faith? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 BINGO!Christians believe that we need to ask Jesus to be our saviour because he died for the sins of Adam and Eve (and all of us as we are all apparently children of this couple). No Adam and Eve means no original sin which means no reason to have Jesus as a savior. Straight forward isn't it? Except that is a little more complicated than that when trying to figure out how people put their beliefs together. From some of the polling data I've read about religious beliefs, many people are way out of step with their own church's dogma without even realizing it. Many believe that their pets can go to heaven, just as many believe that most people, even non-Christians including atheists can go to heaven. To me it indicates that a lot of people consider the narrow-path salvation doctrines that they are taught, to be immoral and undefensible, so they just ignore them and say something like most people will go to heaven. I suppose that there will still be some people calling themselves Christians and going to church even if they don't believe in selective redemption, since the U/U's are already there, either believing everyone goes to heaven, or in some cases not even believing in literal heaven and hell and life after death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I thought he said he's a Catholic; don't they qualify as people of faith? Do they not qualify as people of faith? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) David Asper: The liberal war on faithComment David Asper, National Post Published: Thursday, March 19, 2009 Joseph McCarthy would have approved of the Globe's methods. Will the newspaper's reporters now approach candidates for office with the question "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of a religion that has creationist values?" If it did, readers would find out that virtually every member of parliament ever elected, including the previous three Liberal prime ministers, adhere to some kind of organized religion with creationist tenets. Theology majors and even church ministers have been elected to Parliament. Did Pierre Trudeau's Catholicism ever -- I mean ever -- get raised in this toxic manner during his time in office? Was there ever any hysterical front-page fear that Jean Chretien's Catholicism would dictate his approach to secular matters of state? The answer is obviously no -- plain evidence of the hypocrisy and selective insult faced by members of the Conservative caucus. It's also worth noting that the Charter of Rights -- created under a Liberal government --begins with an acknowledgement of the supremacy of God. Our national anthem also calls on God to keep our land glorious and free. So please, enough with the facade of outing people who believe in a higher power. http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/s...1405199&p=2 Like I said this is a smear job of the Honorable minister. Edited March 20, 2009 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 And now you tar and feather me for my beliefs, yet i want science to move forward like you, but because I defend the man and beleive in god. But because of this you idiots you seem to think I don't beleive in science. As I am not a pious person I can very happily say you bigots can go f--- yourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/s...1405199&p=2Like I said this is a smear job of the Honorable minister. The Honorable Member is the one who made it a religious issue. Tell me, if someone asked you if you believed in the germ theory of disase, would your first reaction be "I don't answer questions about my religion"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 The Honorable Member is the one who made it a religious issue. Tell me, if someone asked you if you believed in the germ theory of disase, would your first reaction be "I don't answer questions about my religion"? It isn't doesn't relate to religion so no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 It isn't doesn't relate to religion so no. That wasn't always the case. There were those who believed diseases were divine retribution, so, in fact, the germ theory of disease, to some religious folks, was a religious statement. In this case, Goodyear clearly felt that evolution was in some way a religious belief, or at least had some effect on his religious belief. Either that, or the guy just randomly tosses words out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I see that David Asper is guilty of the same thing those who defend Goodyear are. They are being dishonest about what was asked. (IOW they changed it-kind of scummy) "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of a religion that has creationist values?" Silly boy that Asper, it was nt even the question asked. http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/s...1405199&p=2Like I said this is a smear job of the Honorable minister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Do you consider Michaelle Jean to be a competent GG? MPs are related to democracy, GG to monarchy. To get ride of a MP, the population has simply to put some pressure or to wait for the next election; to get ride of a Monarch, the people has to be prepared for a revolution. A competent MP is someone who will seduce by his flaws (by showing the way in which his person and his public position are conflicting). A competent Monarch is someone who will seduce by her flesh (by showing the way in which her person and her state function coincide). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 How many candidates who present themselves for election at the federal level fit the following criteria.1. Are scientists, and 2. Get elected, and 3. Make it into Cabinet as Science Minister. It's not like scientists are attracted to public life so the field of candidates for Science Minister seems rather limited. Scientists are not the only professionals whose discipline is evidence-based. For example, physicians are evidence-based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Scientists are not the only professionals whose discipline is evidence-based. For example, physicians are evidence-based. Some of the brighter and more enlightened theologians are evidence based also - they see the miracle of existance - which some are just to dull to grasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Oh, my! Remember, you said that, and not me! .... and since literalism isn't evidence-based, it follows that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Some of the brighter and more enlightened theologians are evidence based also - they see the miracle of existance - which some are just to dull to grasp. Yes, evidence is in itself miraculous because objects are not supposed to care about other objects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 From http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/homeHow can we have a 'Science Minister' who clearly, from his own statements, doesn't give science much credit? Where is the cure for cancer? You would assume that science would have figured that out after 15 trillion dollars tossed to researchers. Science is not the end all and be all of human existance - what is real today is disproven tomorrow. Too much respect for science is not healthy....anymore that totally blind faith. So what if this minister is an eccentric believer? It's not like he does not believe in penicillin. Do we want a blind fanatic that worships science like a religion as minister? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Science can be traumatic because it so easily opens possibilities that force us to question what the meaning of a human life is. But a truth that doesn't make sense to us is yet another definition of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Science can be traumatic because it so easily opens possibilities that force us to question what the meaning of a human life is. But a truth that doesn't make sense to us is yet another definition of God. God will never be defined...that's the last scientific question - that will never be answered...and it is a question of super high and natural science that us ants will never understand --- so is there an end to time and the universe - can we get to the end? NOT LIKELY... ------------It is always traumatic for human beings to feel change - religion like science is eternal change without end - one is not superiour to the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 God will never be defined...that's the last scientific question - that will never be answered...and it is a question of super high and natural science that us ants will never understand --- so is there an end to time and the universe - can we get to the end? NOT LIKELY... ------------It is always traumatic for human beings to feel change - religion like science is eternal change without end - one is not superiour to the other. Each time you are defining something symbolically (letters or numbers) you are with God. You will stop being with God when scientists will implant in your brain a device that will make you feel a program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Each time you are defining something symbolically (letters or numbers) you are with God. You will stop being with God when scientists will implant in your brain a device that will make you feel a program. Nope - I have the god gene - and plenty of them - you can implant what you want....and I will remain the same - maybe even more abnoxious than now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Um, Goodyear's the one who made it a religious issue. Drivel. Unless you're going to suggest the reporter in question was doing some kind of story on evolution, or had a habit of asking all manner of people about their beliefs in evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Argus... if religious opinions don't interfere with the attitudes to SCIENCE of the Minister of State for SCIENCE and Technology, then they are irrelevant. If his religion compromises/cripples his ability to grasp SCIENCE, to understand it, or to grant it appropriate respect, then it becomes a major issue. Was it Dobbin? who pointed out that we'd be screamingt every bit as hard if he happenned to espouse old order Mennonite perspectives on technology. It was an apt analogy- the most apt of the whole collection. However, I don't believe analogies are necessary. An antithetical-to-science attitude , regardless of its source, from a science minister, is asinine on its face, and requires no analogy to illustrate it's absurdity. I'm struggling to believe anyone could be a sufficiently partisan pawn to defend it! He hasn't demonstrated an "antithetical-to-science" attitude. But most of you bigots on the Left have taken the position that anyone who is a regular church-goer and practicing Christian is some kind of club carrying cavemen who ought to be locked away somewhere. If your attitude was towards anyone who was particularly religious that could at least be excused as an honest anti-religious bias. But you'd be falling all over yourselves to hurl abuse at any reporter who dared to suggest a Muslim or Hindu or Sikh minister should not be in their job due to their religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 BINGO!Christians believe that we need to ask Jesus to be our saviour because he died for the sins of Adam and Eve (and all of us as we are all apparently children of this couple). No Adam and Eve means no original sin which means no reason to have Jesus as a savior. Straight forward isn't it? So ban all Christians and put only Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in charge. THEY'RE not religious, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Nope - I have the god gene - and plenty of them - you can implant what you want....and I will remain the same - maybe even more abnoxious than now? At one point (selfish and permissive) genes are not helpful to answer two basic questions: adaptation to what and of what? At this point very suddenly, we can say God appears and a totally new order creates its own environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.