It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:14 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:31 pm
Posts: 18574
Location: (M) Pater Familias
Airborne375 wrote:
Forge wrote:
Airborne375 wrote:
Thank you for your very warm welcome.

I shall take your advice and even watch Expelled. I've always respected Ben Stein but can't say I was happy in the manner in which he treats Richard Dawkins in the film, I haven't seen the entire film but have seen the entire scene which includes Dawkins. I respect Dawkins mainly because he's intelligent, educated, doesn't care about PC, shoots from the hip and speaks his mind, sound familiar? That said I hope Dawkins is wrong in his position.

I will watch from the shadows, prowl around the perimeter of the discussions on the forum, maybe comment here and there if I feel 'qualified' to and eventually start a thread when I feel comfortable in my 'new' environment.

Thanks again, I usually despise those animated smiley things but yours feels awful sincere. :)

It most certainly was meant as sincere.

But now you also need to understand some things about the Dawkins piece. Dawkins clearly says there is a war between theism and atheism(science). All is fair in love and war and as a theist I believe taking Dawkins words out of context is tit for tat for his purposely antagonistic and controversial comments.


I do understand Dawkins is very antagonistic and controversial and he also goes out of his way to be rude. Not that I want to defend him but I see Ms. Coulter as antagonistic and controversial as well and respect her for it. Mr. Stein was dishonest, he involved Dawkins with his movie under false pretenses (according to Dawkins, admittedly I haven't looked into Stein's version of the events) he edited his piece in a very out of contextual fashion and that's just dishonest, in fact it reeks of Micheal Moore. If you have to make your points in a deceptive and dishonest fashion, why bother making them?

'Theists' are at a disadvantage in the 'Prove there is a God' debate. The only real physical evidence of the Him is a book written a very long time ago. You can only believe in God if you have faith, I don't think faith can actually be measured with a brain scan or some such instrument. This does not invalidate Faith in my eyes, not at all. I only mention it to explain why the 'Prove there is a God' argument is a bad one for Theists to engage in, the enemy has a 'superior' position. Never engage the enemy when he is in a 'superior' position, if you can avoid it. 'Just because you have no Faith does not invalidate my belief in God' or some version is a much better position. At least from my prospective.

I respect Dawkins but don't want to defend his positions, I just think the piece in the movie was very dirty pool. The only points Mr. Stein scored with me was he managed to hoodwink Dawkins, perhaps showing the smug professor shouldn't be quite so smug. It was definitely a slap in the face Psy-Ops style, Dawkins is likely still squawking about it to this day.

Thanks for the reply. If you think this thread should be moved elsewhere, and can do so, please do.


No I can't and you are free to do what you see fit. We will simply agree to disagree on what happened in the film. But please spend your time here amongst us and I wish you the best of luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:23 am
Posts: 6930
Location: Blackjack Pershing had the right stuff!
Forge wrote:
Airborne375 wrote:
Thank you for your very warm welcome.

I shall take your advice and even watch Expelled. I've always respected Ben Stein but can't say I was happy in the manner in which he treats Richard Dawkins in the film, I haven't seen the entire film but have seen the entire scene which includes Dawkins. I respect Dawkins mainly because he's intelligent, educated, doesn't care about PC, shoots from the hip and speaks his mind, sound familiar? That said I hope Dawkins is wrong in his position.

I will watch from the shadows, prowl around the perimeter of the discussions on the forum, maybe comment here and there if I feel 'qualified' to and eventually start a thread when I feel comfortable in my 'new' environment.

Thanks again, I usually despise those animated smiley things but yours feels awful sincere. :)

It most certainly was meant as sincere.

But now you also need to understand some things about the Dawkins piece. Dawkins clearly says there is a war between theism and atheism(science). .



This is likely to be my last post anywhere, but science was invented by the Church, and does not have to be at odds with it.

The declaration of 'war' was not on the part of the Church but on the part of Dawkins, for whom atheism is a zealous religion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:10 pm
Posts: 2633
Location: The measure of a man is what he does with power - Plato
I don't believe science and religion are at odds at all. There are several highly respected theist scientists. (Though Dawkin calls them disillusioned or untrue to their profession which I don't agree with.)

I'm unsure if Dawkins started the 'war' but he's likely the general these days. Thomas Jefferson is said to have certainly been an agnostic and possibly an atheist judging from his writings. (I can likely dig up a situation if you'd like) George Washington spoke out about this nation not being founded as a Christian one. He was the Author of the Treaty of Tripoli (or certainly had a part in it's drafting) And John Adams certainly approved of it before it was signed it during his term.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp - Article 11 is the meat but you can certainly read the whole document but I found it very tedious reading.

Personally I don't believe Atheism is a religion. It is a philosophy and even a 'movement' but neither of those are qualifiers to make it a religion. You could likely use the same debate to say fishing is a religion.

I keep saying I don't wish to defend Atheism or Dawkins but I've done a lot of reading of Dawkins works. Say anything you'd like about him but he does know how to make compelling arguments for Atheism. I didn't join the forum to argue for Dawkins or Atheism but to find God again.

Thank you for the discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:16 pm
Posts: 899
Location: NH
Airborne375 wrote:
Forge wrote:
Airborne375 wrote:
Thank you for your very warm welcome.

I shall take your advice and even watch Expelled. I've always respected Ben Stein but can't say I was happy in the manner in which he treats Richard Dawkins in the film, I haven't seen the entire film but have seen the entire scene which includes Dawkins. I respect Dawkins mainly because he's intelligent, educated, doesn't care about PC, shoots from the hip and speaks his mind, sound familiar? That said I hope Dawkins is wrong in his position.

I will watch from the shadows, prowl around the perimeter of the discussions on the forum, maybe comment here and there if I feel 'qualified' to and eventually start a thread when I feel comfortable in my 'new' environment.

Thanks again, I usually despise those animated smiley things but yours feels awful sincere. :)

It most certainly was meant as sincere.

But now you also need to understand some things about the Dawkins piece. Dawkins clearly says there is a war between theism and atheism(science). All is fair in love and war and as a theist I believe taking Dawkins words out of context is tit for tat for his purposely antagonistic and controversial comments.


I do understand Dawkins is very antagonistic and controversial and he also goes out of his way to be rude. Not that I want to defend him but I see Ms. Coulter as antagonistic and controversial as well and respect her for it. Mr. Stein was dishonest, he involved Dawkins with his movie under false pretenses (according to Dawkins, admittedly I haven't looked into Stein's version of the events) he edited his piece in a very out of contextual fashion and that's just dishonest, in fact it reeks of Micheal Moore. If you have to make your points in a deceptive and dishonest fashion, why bother making them?

'Theists' are at a disadvantage in the 'Prove there is a God' debate. The only real physical evidence of the Him is a book written a very long time ago. You can only believe in God if you have faith, I don't think faith can actually be measured with a brain scan or some such instrument. This does not invalidate Faith in my eyes, not at all. I only mention it to explain why the 'Prove there is a God' argument is a bad one for Theists to engage in, the enemy has a 'superior' position. Never engage the enemy when he is in a 'superior' position, if you can avoid it. 'Just because you have no Faith does not invalidate my belief in God' or some version is a much better position. At least from my prospective.

I respect Dawkins but don't want to defend his positions, I just think the piece in the movie was very dirty pool. The only points Mr. Stein scored with me was he managed to hoodwink Dawkins, perhaps showing the smug professor shouldn't be quite so smug. It was definitely a slap in the face Psy-Ops style, Dawkins is likely still squawking about it to this day.

Thanks for the reply. If you think this thread should be moved elsewhere, and can do so, please do.


I would not recommend Godless for rediscovering your faith. That's not to say Godless isn't a good book (it is), but the subject material is politics and the godlessness of the left. By all means read Godless, but not as a way to try to rediscover your faith.

Similarly, ACOC is not the best place to rediscover your faith. You'll find many great Christian posters here, but this is a political forum.

A better place for rediscovering your faith is http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/. WK focuses a lot on apologetics and often links to arguments, lectures, and debates from prominent Christian philosophers such as William Lane Craig. For example, he has a post specifically on physical evidence for God's existence (atheists don't have the 'superior' position you think they have). Another great blog is Eternity Matters. There you'll find plenty of apologetics, Bible study, etc. There's even a post with advice and links for skeptics such as yourself. Predictably, the authors of both blogs are very conservative (that's where Ann's Godless comes in -- after reading it you'll understand that the left is godless/unChristian, yet have built up an entire substitute "church").


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:10 pm
Posts: 2633
Location: The measure of a man is what he does with power - Plato
Thank you very much. I shall look into the resources you recommended. I do enjoy political debate so finding this Forum was a great find as well.

Thanks again for hopefully putting me on the 'right' track again. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:23 am
Posts: 1
Greetings fellow Ann Coulter enthusiasts! This is my first post, which is actually a question. If my memory serves me correctly, I remember Ann refer in one of her talks to her book (I believe it was "Godless") where she cited a study or poll stating that Evangelicals are the most content with their sex life than any other group of people who were asked. Does anyone remember what the poll or study was and who conducted it? I am not terribly surprised by the results given that Bible-believing Christians hold marital sex as the only venue where sex is allowed. When maintaining sexual expression in such a clearly-defined and meaningful defined way, sex only in marriage truly becomes a special means of relationship unlike the debasement it suffers in the culture at large, particularly in these times where modern pop culture has distorted it so grotesquely.

Trying to find it myself on Google by entering, "poll who has the best sex evangelicals" or similar wording, I continually see sites and posts that slam Evangelicals. It so sad that how politicized and biased the internet has become. Just take Wikipedia for instance. It is really a sham. You've got to hand it to the Left however, they certainly know how to exploit propaganda in all its forms to make up for the lack of truth they have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:49 pm 
Offline
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:17 pm
Posts: 6446
Location: Ohio
She footnotes her books extensively. If you can find it in the book, I guarantee she'll have named the poll in the back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:28 pm
Posts: 2
Being a big fan of conservative authors I have read several of AC’s books. They are brilliant, logical, factual and follow sound philosophical reasoning. I found “Godless” as good as the others if not the best yet. I found AC’s analysis of Darwin’s theory very accurate on philosophical grounds. I feel all scientists should be forced to study the philosophy of scientific theory. I also found AC’s placement of this theory in the forefront of much of the problems that have been generated by Liberalism very insightful.
Of course there is a “but” coming. It is that even though “Godless” states that it is specifically talking about Darwin’s Theory, this seems like a technicality. The arguments used do not refute modern Evolutionary Theory as it is currently based on genetics and the exact study and comparisons of specific DNA sequences. The point may be trivial because biologists always display such homage to Darwin and Random Mutation before they discuss genetics. In genetics, one small change in a gene can control countless parts of DNA and actual traits or characteristics of plants and animals. In fact with sex requiring both a male and female genetic sequence to be combined, entire chromosomes can remain dormant for generations allowing for complex “mutations” before actually being expressed in a generation of offspring.
Of course this is much more complex than Darwin’s Random Mutation and may actually have some overlap with what could be called Intelligent Design Theory.
This is my only objection to the entire book so please don’t pile on me.
AC’s philosophical reasoning applied to Darwin’s theory would also yield some interesting results with other aspects of science. Also Darwiniacs are certainly trying to explain a lot more than they are. This is a failure of science in general. It tries to gloss over what it cannot explain. We are thousands of years from some kind of theory of free will as explained in scientific terms so scientists tend to just say there is no such thing. Darwiniacs certainly can’t explain the origins of life. As to the Cambrian Explosion I believe there are future discoveries involving other complex mechanisms that may account for what happened then.
From a philosophical point of view, if you look at the Big Bang Theory, it claims that the lifespan of the entire Universe is only about 3 times as long as the life span of the little old Earth. This is on face value absurd, and borders on Creationism in a sense or at least “Earth as the center of the Universe” thinking. Surely there must have been thousands of Earth like planets from origin to end of existence end to end in the course of the Universe’s existence.
If you consider the explanation of how the speed of light is a constant, that time and space shrink, this is also absurd, since if time and space are in flux, why should I believe any accuracy could be achieved in calculating speed.
Scientist and philosophical determinist thinkers have the same devotion as radical Muslims, and of course this is to be expected since they both have fate as their fundamental belief.
In what was always said to be the darkest period of Christianity, the Spanish Inquisition, it’s cause was the belief that the souls of men were broken off pieces from God and after death returned to God and kept no traits from human life. This pernicious belief removes any idea of the soul’s learning or maturing or strengthening during life on Earth for God’s purposes as well as takes away the entire idea of praying for deceased relatives or friends and not to mention patron saints. Muslims consider Saints to be a form of Paganism or irrational religion and guess what, so do scientists and determinist thinking philosophers from as far back as ancient Greece.
Yet I digress. Getting back to Intelligent Design, the concept is as old in modern thought as Descartes. If humans are intelligent, an intelligent God must have made them. It is actually very scientific, mathematical and philosophical.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:28 pm
Posts: 2
As regards Ann Coulter and others who don’t believe in Random Mutation and Natural Selection it should be noted that any time Science uses the word “Random” it should be simply admitting that there are too many and too minute causal factors involved to predict or explain something. Take for example the waves in the oceans. Shouldn’t science at some point be able to account for each and every wave that has ever occurred? This is a shortcoming of science and must be readily admitted by scientists. Random as an ideal means “without a cause” and science should stick to causation. Suppose we consider all the discovered planets and exoplanets as well as stars. They are all somewhat in the shapes of spheres. Surely any scientist will have a theory with a causal explanation for this. When space travel advances and we discover life in other worlds I believe it will largely mirror the development of life on Earth because there is nothing Random about it. Quantum Mechanics biggest fault is that it depends on Randomness. Supposedly minute particles can pop into existence without any cause. This is faulty science I am afraid. The Philosophical parallel to randomness is Subjectivism and Relativism. One of the most revered modern philosophers has stated, “The world is made up of only facts and nothing else.” (Wittgenstein) This makes the obvious mistake of overlooking the fact that different people observe the same facts. Facts are nature’s way of communicating what the real world is like to the minds of humans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:37 pm
Posts: 4492
My favorite of all of her books. :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:23 pm
Posts: 14776
Location: The origin of the Super Derecho.
^ You are not getting a date regardless.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group