About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

February 23, 2010 7:13am by David Farrar

General Debate 23 February 2010

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment231

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (231)

Login to comment or vote

LeftRightOut

When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion.

Abraham Lincoln

As to the spinach, enuff said 🙁
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 4:52pm
dad4justice

I thought you were banned billy borker? You are totally crackers fugley.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 4:57pm
Scott

Very well argued virtualmark. My understanding of Hitler is that he was into the occult and could most accurately described as a pagan. Although he did attend church occasionally, particularly in his early years, he appeared to hate Christianity as a religion of the weak.

Indeed the case could be made he was something of an ‘antichrist’ in his desire to kill the Jews (God’s chosen people) and replace them with the German aryan race (the people he believed were chosen). So I think we can safely rule out that Hitler was a christian. In fact he was anti-christian.

With regard to Stalin he went to seminary but then explicitly rejected God and by his own admission became an atheist.His regime was atheistic as were the communist regimes in I think all other countries where communism took hold.That atheism produced two of the great mass murderers of the 20th century,Stalin and Mao,is in my view no accident.

In my view atheism is evil and produces evil- ‘by their fruits you shall know them’.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 5:04pm
Yvette

“And if there is no God and no right or wrong then who is to say that Hitler was wrong? You are convinced he was wrong and that Hitler was evil Hitler was convinced that he was right …”

Perhaps ask someone who is Jewish
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 5:06pm
Pete George

Do you think all of atheism is evil Scott? All Atheists? Any Christians?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 5:18pm
Yvette

“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.”
This quote happens to be ‘Christian’, but the same actions can be Buddhist or Atheist or Anything Else. Thinking and motivation may differ but the end actions are the same.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 5:24pm
Scott

Hi Pete-all I am saying is that atheism is evil because it denies the God who made us and is a big move away from the good.God alone being good.

No I wouldn’t say all atheists are evil.Some atheists live above their worldview. In the same way those of us that are christians can often live below ours.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 5:35pm
Chthoniid

Chtoniid … Hitler dabbled with the occult, and other Nazi leaders were heavily into the occult. I would suggest that any society trying to mobilise itself for war tries to wrap itself up in some “God is with us” type sloganeering.

By definition, atheists are not into the occult.
Nonetheless, I am disappointed that you choose to simply fence-off bona fide evidence like the Mein Kamf or German army Christian symbols in favour of an ad hoc, they weren’t true Xtians defence. That is hardly being intellectually honest. You could argue that the Hitler had a bastardised version of Xtianity, and I’d accept that. But seriously, this ‘by their fruits defence’ is lame. They adopted much of the trappings of Christianity and eschewed- explicitly- secular humanist ideas.

The Nazi mission was to defend Christianity against Christ’s enemies- Jews, homosexuals, communists etc. This had a long history in Europe. It was sufficiently recognisable as a Christian doctrine that Protestant and Catholic churches supported the Nazis (just as they did Franco and Mussolini). Bonhoeffer had to leave his church to oppose Hitler. When Hitler channels God from the start, uses Christian symbols in his army and wins the support of Christian Churches, there is no doubt of his theistic antecedents.

I have already referenced contractarianism as a method for asserting moral values. Early popes did the same when they opposed slavery (ineffectually alas). I doubt you could conceive a world where someone would be equally content to be a Jew or a Aryan in Nazi Germany.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 5:44pm
Fale Andrew Lesa

I’m going to add my contribution to what appears to be a very interesting discussion and argue that nether atheism (some will argue that it is a form of religion due to the faith component of complete rejection of theism) nor religious movements such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc are fundamentally “evil” but those that choose to openly endorse one of the above and also choose to interpret particular elements of these movements in a way that encourages evil or wrongdoing are in fact the real “evil doers”.

Historically, we have seen the American chapter of the KKK arguing that scripture supports a “pure master race” and provides the superiority of their continued dominance. An example of how scripture is often misinterpreted under the blanket of religion and yet masterminded under the flames of evil, deceit and destruction.

We won’t get any where facilitating a debate around who is the most evil but what we can openly acknowledge is that the fundamental elements of religion and atheism are simply not to blame but those that choose to self-interpret these.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 5:55pm
Chthoniid

Hi Pete-all I am saying is that atheism is evil because it denies the God who made us and is a big move away from the good.God alone being good.

That may well reflect your world view but it starts to unpersuasive quickly.

Let’s take 2 Samuel. David has done a census and God gets in touch.
Paraphrasing-
God- I’m pissed you did a census
David- err, what…it isn’t even banned in leviticus, I checked.
God- You have to be punished
David- (desperate) don’t I have free will?
God- giggle
David- ok, how are you going to punish me
God- I’m going to randomly kill a lot of people and you have to choose how
David- wait, I did something wrong correct?
God- yes
David- …so you’re going to kill tens of thousands of people who had no influence on me, but nothing will happen to me?
God yes
David- so I screw up and you will kill a bunch of other people to punish…me?
God yes, I can see you are awed by my mortal perfection
David… is that you Satan?
God- stop wasting my time, what’s it going to be- war, famine, disease?
David- Wait, don’t they have free will?
God- times up- goes off and kills 70,000 men, women & children omitted as unimportant casualties.
David- stop it, you know it was my fault!
God- oh all right, it was really your fault.

I don’t quite see the goodness inherent to God here with my puny human brain.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 6:01pm
Chthoniid

I’m going to add my contribution to what appears to be a very interesting discussion and argue that nether atheism (some will argue that it is a form of religion due to the faith component of complete rejection of theism) nor religious movements such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc are fundamentally “evil”

Thanks, please note however I’ve tried to argue that Stalin is no more an inevitable outcome of atheism than Hitler was an inevitable outcome of Christianity. There are many other historical factors at play. Ultimately, any violent ideology that freely classes groups, classes or races as ‘enemies’ of society, combined with modern killing technology, is a very bad thing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 6:16pm
MikeNZ

Seeing as you are discussing different worldviews and the likelihood of people doing violence based on them I’d like to table an article by british journo melanie phillips on movie violence.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=717

They break the taboos against extreme behaviour simply by portraying that behaviour — and thus help destroy the constraints that preserve elementary norms of decency.

It is not enough to make the sadistic character unattractive. By turning sadism into entertainment, such films inescapably turn audiences into voyeuristic accomplices.

While movies are shaped by a society’s values, they also help in turn to shape those values. And our society has become increasingly cruel, voyeuristic and sadistic. Just think Big Brother or The Weakest Link. Just think of the recent horrific crimes of torture both of and by small children.

what do you think of the premise of her article?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 6:34pm
Hurf Durf

If Puke says something is “objective,” it probably isn’t. Leftards generally can’t spot their own biases because they genuinely believe their own position to be correct and unassailable.

Also I wondered when he was going to get his arse into gear and bitch about NATO. Maybe he could travel to Marjah and chain himself to a house or something.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 7:13pm
Pete George

Mike, most movie violence is a major turnoff for me, I really don’t like it. Including movies like “The Passion of the Christ”. I think TV and movie violence may contribute to increasing levels of violence in society, in effect normalising it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 7:21pm
Pete George

No I wouldn’t say all atheists are evil.Some atheists live above their worldview. In the same way those of us that are christians can often live below ours.

Some Christians seem to put themselves on a pedestal from which they can fall but also can crawl back up onto.
And they think of everyone else as far lesser people who can rise above slightly but can never label themselves as one of the elite unless they pray in the right direction.

Is this arrogance?
Self deceit?
Or what?

What will heaven be like?
“He had to redeem himself four times and I only chose to do it twice!”

Or will even the highest pedestal priests be on the same level there?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 7:27pm
Johnboy

Did anyone know this and if so who cares?

… that Indians perform the second most Google searches for Ayn Rand after Americans?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 7:29pm
Pete George

I’ve heard of Google. What sort of Indians?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 7:31pm
Redbaiter

” If Puke says something is “objective,” it probably isn’t. Leftards generally can’t spot their own biases because they genuinely believe their own position to be correct and unassailable. ”

Damn right. Puke says he’s not a leftist, and in his tiny mind he’s not. Its like someone who has been sucking on lemons all of their life. Lemons and only lemons, and therefore, because they’ve never tasted honey or anything sweet, doesn’t actually understand that lemons are sour.

His claims that there is no leftist bias in the media are another manifestation of utter narrow bigoted one eyed ignorance. Survey after survey has shown it to be true, book after book has been written on the issue, university studies have proved it and anyone with a working brain can pick it from a light year’s distance. All those millions of people and those thousands of studies tho must be cast aside for Puke declares in all his narrow brainfucked Marxist Stalinist Maoist ignorance that it is not so.

Damn vile propaganda sucking propaganda spieling anti-human degenerate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 7:38pm
Johnboy

Yvette Said at 5:06 pm

“And if there is no God and no right or wrong then who is to say that Hitler was wrong? You are convinced he was wrong and that Hitler was evil Hitler was convinced that he was right …”

“Perhaps ask someone who is Jewish”

If you don’t know any Jews why don’t you just watch this.

http://www.archive.org/details/nazi_concentration_camps

Just in case any of you really smart sort of fellows were busy re-writing history!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 7:51pm
Johnboy

“I’ve heard of Google. What sort of Indians?”

Certainly not red ones Pete they are now known as First nation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 7:53pm
virtualmark

eszett … go back to my comment at 2:10pm. If you want to be a Christian, an atheist, or someone who believes in the saving power of pink elephants that’s fine by me. All I’m pointing out here is that atheistic secular humanism has some troubling flaws.

Go back to your original post at 12:29 about wanting to “base our society on secular values and reason”.

What I’m saying is that secular humanism’s values and reason are no basis for an attractive society.

Religion is able to say “Here are the values you must live by, and here are the consequences if you don’t live by them”. With Christianity – since New Zealand is nominally a Christian country – the values are set out in the New Testament, and the supposed consequences of not living by them is that God will judge you and you’ll probably spend eternity in hell.

Because you had an objective moral code, backed up by a moral lawgiver (and judge), and applied consistently and equally across everyone then it was practical to base a society on them.

Secularism doesn’t have that objective moral code, it can only have a subjective individualistic moral code. You have your set of morals. Stalin has his set of morals. There is no external moral lawgiver and judge – just each individual unanswerable to any deity. Over time the people with the strongest might and the most ruthless set of morals inevitably take control. The logical outcome is totalitarianism. That and hedonism.

So yes, Stalin is an example of the logical outcomes of “secular values and reason”.

In practice most “atheists” and “humanists” are actually syncretists. They’ve synthesized a belief system which combines the moral code derived from religion with the “There are no gods” from atheism. That’s what we have here in the West today. A moral code which we all understand and subscribe to, but philosophically could not have developed without a deity, and with its most central aspect – the judge jury & executioner part – neutered.

But it’s intellectually lazy and philosophically dishonest.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:07pm
Redbaiter

Why I despise leftists. Look at these cowardly slimy deceitful bastards. They cannot argue their case among the adult population and instead must abuse the public education system to invade the minds of gullible easily influenced and naive school children.

They have no conscience, no morals and no self respect. The only thing that matters to them is the perpetuation of the same crippled antilife anti-human political perspective that consumes them and has almost destroyed the US. Progressivism.

————————————————————————-

President Barack Obama’s budget has added more than $100 billion of federal taxpayers’ money to what is called “education,” so that means it will be spent by alumni of the Saul Alinsky school of radical community organizing and/or the Chicago Democratic machine. We’re indebted to Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com for exposing the shocking use of some of these funds.

Obama is using the public schools to recruit a private army of high-schoolers to “build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda.” We now know that Obama’s “agenda” is to move the United States into European-style socialism.

Obama’s Internet outreach during his campaign, Obama for America, has been renamed Organizing for America (OFA) in order to recruit students to join a cult of Obama and become activists for his goals. Geller discovered that the teacher of an 11th-grade government class in Massillon, Ohio, passed out the sign-up sheet, headed with Obama’s “O” logo, asking students to become interns for Organizing for America.

These interns will be given an intensive nine-week training course using comprehensive lesson plans. Assigned readings include Saul Alinsky’s notorious “Rules for Radicals,” “Stir It Up: Lessons From Community Organizing and Advocacy” by the left-wing activist Rinku Sen, and particular sections of “Dreams From My Father” dealing with Obama’s days as a community organizer in Chicago.

Republican students will be filtered out of the intern program by requiring applicants to answer questions that reveal their politics. One example is, “What one issue facing our country is important to you and why?”

Geller said the purpose of this training to become Alinsky-style community organizers is, “of course, to elect more Democrats.” The internship program is specifically geared to get the kids working in the 2010 elections.

The sign-up sheet for Organizing for America starts with this instruction: “Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda of change.” The application explains that this national internship program is “working to make the change we fought so hard for in 2008 a reality in 2010 and beyond.”

This is not the first time Obama has tried to enlist schoolchildren into an Obama cult. Last fall, the instructions mailed to every school by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan added a very political dimension to Obama’s speech that was broadcast to public school children on Sept. 8.

Geller explained the extensive political dimension of the new intern program. The OFA student interns will be trained in the goals and language of the left: “antiwar agitation, anti-capitalism, Marx, Lenin, (Bill) Ayers, LGBT agenda promotion, global warming, soft-on-jihad and illegal immigration.”

Another item on OFA’s reading list is “The New Organizers” by Zack Exley. It brags about “an insurgent generation of organizers” inside the Obama campaign that has “almost without anyone noticing … built the Progressive movement a brand new and potentially durable people’s organization, in a dozen states, rooted at the neighborhood level.”

The 10-page “National Intern Organizer Curriculum” is very specific in describing the tactics that interns will be taught. It includes these components: “Using Story as an Organizing Tool, Building Relationships and Building Teams, Mobilizing to Win on the Issues (issue advocacy), Health Care Service Project.”

Passage of Obamacare is one of this intern project’s major goals. The curriculum promises to provide “insight on the strategy and plan behind the health care campaign” and “further motivate them to work on the issue.”

The sign-up sheet states that the “purpose” of training these students is “to build community” among the interns and teach them “to be leaders in OFA’s organizing work.” After all, Barack Obama knows a great deal about being a community organizer — that was his only real job before he got into politics.

Job prospects may be bleak for many Americans, but they will be rosy for alumni of Obama’s intern program. After the students have been fully trained as Alinsky-style community organizers, they will be eligible for jobs in Senior Corps, AmeriCorps or Learn and Serve America.

Those three so-called “service” organizations, which annually dole out millions of dollars to left-wing groups, are overseen by the Corporation for National and Community Service. The U.S. Senate just confirmed this Corporation’s new chief executive, Patrick Corvington, who was a senior official of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which has given over a million and a half dollars to the ACORN network of organizations.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2010/02/23/organizing_kids_for_obama?page=full&comments=true
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:17pm
virtualmark

eszett and Chthoniid … re your comments on Hitler and Stalin.

Hitler was a classical syncretist. Yes there are references to Christianity in Mein Kampf. But he also dealt in the occult. And his philosophy was based on Nietzche. What’s clear is that his actions were totally un-Christian. So no matter what you might read in Mein Kampf I think it’s foolish to suggest he was a Christian.

Stalin did go to seminary, back when he was plain old Ioseb Jughashvili. But he never graduated and it’s clear he turned his back on the church shortly after leaving the seminary. He became strongly atheistic. Svetlana Stalin says that just before he died Stalin rose up from his deathbed, looked up and shook his clenched fist at God. I suspect Stalin would have though most of the Western atheists were effeminate dilettantes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:17pm
Shunda barunda

“All I’m pointing out here is that atheistic secular humanism has some troubling flaws.”

It sure does, and while the likes of Dawkins may not actually participate in oppressing people in conflict with his views, his loyal followers will.
We even had our previous children’s commissioner, the wonderfully tolerant Cindy Kiro, suggesting what in effect was a second class citizenship for Christian parents entirely based on the writings of Richard Dawkins.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:28pm
virtualmark

eszett

You already acknowledge that the Old Testament, with all the slavery, rape and mass killings, is no basis for a coherent moral code. However following your logic, there would have been no basis for a moral code before New Testament was written.

So tell me, what did mankind build on for thousands and thousands of years before we had the new testamant? No morals whatsoever? You either have to believe that there was no morals before or acknowledge that there must be some morals no based of Christianity.

Furthermore you ( I assume) believe that the Bible of is the word of God and the morality is derived of that. However the majority of humans do not share your belief, but believe in something else (either a different religion or no religion). So are all these humans immoral? Do they not have a moral basis because they care about the New Testament as much as you care about the Koran?

I think you will find that religions have adopted morals rather than developed them. Nothing inherent about them. You will also find that a) morals change (eg. look at our attitude towards slavery today vs 2-300 years ago) and b) some basic morals ( you shall not kill, steal, etc) are universal amongst religion.

To say Christianity is the inherent base of morality is misguided, to say the least.

eszett, I’m not arguing this from a Christian standpoint. What I am saying is that most religions are able to impose and enforce a moral code. Because they posit a moral lawgiver, a moral judge, and some form of punishment, which then compels people to observe the moral code.

What came before the New Testament moral code? Well, in a Jewish context … the Old Testament one. Complete with Jahweh and a highly structured set of “punishments”. What was in place in ancient Greece, and ancient Rome … a literal pantheon of Gods who could be invoked as possible punishments for transgressions. Same in ancient Egypt, Persia etc etc.

What moral code do non-Christians believe in? Well, the Koran (since you asked) has its own moral code – not a particularly appealing one but there you are – and all sorts of carrots and sticks about Paradise.

What I’m saying is that those religions are pretty internally consistent on that stuff, and they offer something that a workable society can be based on.

What I’m also saying is that secular humanism doesn’t have those same characteristics.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:30pm
Johnboy

“I suspect Stalin would have though most of the Western atheists were effeminate dilettantes.”

Except for Winston of course.

“When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, Winston Churchill, a vehement anti-Communist, famously stated “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons,” regarding his policy toward Stalin.[153] Soon, British supplies and tanks were flowing to help the Soviet Union.[154]”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:34pm
Redbaiter

While you dromgools are endlessly batting religion back and forth, the socialists are plotting and moving forward. Think about it, and think about how every attacking force appreciates any kind of diversion.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:38pm
Pete George

What moral code do non-Christians believe in?

In NZ our legal system defines it for everyone regardless of religion.

Atheists don’t have to worry about hell because they don’t believe in it. They can choose to follow a moral code because they think it’s right, not just because they are afraid of vague dire consequences.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:39pm
Johnboy

So what is Phil plotting at the moment Red? How to divert us on the right by lulling us into a false sense of security when he drops below the Jim or Peter Parties in the next poll?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:42pm
virtualmark

But Pete that’s the central thing I’m arguing here.

Atheism “works” in the West because it rides on the back of a universal moral system of laws based on religion – the very thing that atheism rails against. It can do that because those laws have become so ingrained and imbued in our society that we no longer think of them as coming from religion.

But, from a philosophical point-of-view, atheism and secular humanism couldn’t have developed that set of laws and then had the whole population agree to them and stick to them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:47pm
Redbaiter

Always new those idiotic liberals in Massachusetts, who voted for Ted Kennedy for decades, wouldn’t elect anyone but another worthless liberal. Glenn Beck was right. Scott Brown is just another fake Republican.

——————————————————————————

New U.S. senator helps Democrats advance jobs bill

Brown said the bill was not perfect but would help put people back to work.

“I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington,” he said in a statement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2221899520100222

Interesting thread on Free Republic-

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2457053/posts
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:49pm
Redbaiter

” So what is Phil plotting at the moment Red? ”

Who knows, but he’s not the real problem. At least he clear about where he stands. Its his supporters in National who are the real enemy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:51pm
virtualmark

Red … have you found anyone yet who’s to the right of you?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:55pm
virtualmark

Genghis Khan?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:55pm
Johnboy

Ahh. Now I understand. Like the ones that are pushing this shit? Oh Shit what AM I saying! Its Neville whose pushing it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10626440

One side of the waterbed that is. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:57pm
big bruv

Red

Remind me again how the Destiny party and the Christian went at the last election?

One day you will wake up to the fact that NZ (or the USA for that matter) does not want to be governed by a party that formulates policy based on the teachings of a work of fiction (the Bible).

As for Beck, well I would imagine that Scott Brown can take great comfort that a nut case like Beck has trashed him, being trashed by Beck is worth at least ten points in the polls.

I have no issie with Hannity, O’Reily or even Limbaugh, but Beck is just an idiot.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:59pm
Johnboy

“Genghis Khan?”

Vlad the Impaler.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:59pm
Redbaiter

” Genghis Khan? ”

Fucking panty waisted liberal.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:59pm
dad4justice

I suggest we chip in so big blouse can mend his pathological hatred of myself. This creepy git has attacked me since he changed his name from Hinamanu. Check it out Doctor.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 8:59pm
Johnboy

Wasn’t that Hinemanu Dad?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:01pm
Yvette

For you, Johnboy, when the Christians catch up, ask them :
Some Christians state the Bible is inerrant and omnicompetent and so say you must believe in the virgin birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. What then do they make of Mark or John, neither of whom appear to be aware of the virgin birth and therefore didn’t believe in that aspect of the Bible that they are part of?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:03pm
dad4justice

Johnboy the sick blouse unit changed his name after clocking up to many demerits under his old name. This is one true whack job who needs treatment asap.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:04pm
Redbaiter

“I have no issie with Hannity, O’Reily or even Limbaugh, but Beck is just an idiot.”

You’re a fuckwit who because you are blinded by your bigotry and ignorance, cannot distinguish between zealots and ordinary Christians. Hannity, O’Reilly and Limbaugh are all God fearing. As much as Beck is. Go away with your shallow misinformed perceptions. You’re just a crashing bore.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:05pm
big bruv

D4J

1.inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
2.Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one’s own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.

Have a bit of a hunt, see if you can match those descriptions up with a word that describes you perfectly.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:05pm
dad4justice

How about a face to face meeting blouse? Yeah right pigs will fly. One word for you = COWARD!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:07pm
Viking2

Todays good chuckle

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/rose-bay-traffic-sign-stops-traffic-to-declare-kevin-rudd-sucks/story-e6freuzi-1225833264067
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:07pm
big bruv

Johnboy

According to D4J I have been many people, including Insolent Prick and Hinemanu to name but a few, apparently my real name is Brett Dugan as well.

Oh well, at least I do not live in Christchurch.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:08pm
Redbaiter

D4J is a courageous and persistent man who deserves credit for his efforts to shake the justice system and the Family Court free of the grip of feminist zealots. Once again Bruv, you cannot see the wood for the trees.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:09pm
dad4justice

big blouse is a coward, a coward, a coward, a coward…….
I enjoy meetings with other bloggers. Coward blouse, coward, coward, coward…..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:09pm
Redbaiter

Dad, its only the internet for chrissakes. You shouldn’t let people get to you as much as they do. Every time you lose your cool they see it as a victory.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:11pm
dad4justice

Red, I understand but every fucking day this blouse creep attacks me. Why we can’t talk face to face so I can understand his beef is beyond my understanding. If he wants to abuse me, then I say do it to my face. Fairs fair. This must be sorted out for once and all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:13pm
virtualmark

Yvette …

Some Christians state the Bible is inerrant and omnicompetent and so say you must believe in the virgin birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. What then do they make of Mark or John, neither of whom appear to be aware of the virgin birth and therefore didn’t believe in that aspect of the Bible that they are part of?

Question: Are there any statements in Mark or John which are inconsistent with a virgin birth? Do they say anything which suggests there wasn’t a virgin birth? Or do they just not mention anything about Jesus’ birth at all?

The New Testament’s been there for over 1,900 years … you’d have to be surprised if it had lasted that long with any obvious flaws like contradictions on the virgin birth.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:14pm
Johnboy

Could be worse Bruv. You could live in Wainuiomata.

Christ that’s so bad you aren’t even allowed to move to Palmerston North. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:16pm
big bruv

Comrade Redbaiter

I have no issue with “God fearing” folk, I am well aware that Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reily are religious, they just do not let it dominate to the same extent that Beck does, nor do they wake at night to check under their beds for those “nasty reds” as Beck so obviously does.

Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reily are well worth listening to, Beck on the other hand is good for nothing moire than comedy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:17pm
virtualmark

” Genghis Khan? ”

Fucking panty waisted liberal.

Thanks ‘baiter. Made me laugh.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:17pm
Johnboy

“For you, Johnboy, when the Christians catch up, ask them :”

Bugger the Christians how is that lamb rack coming along?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:18pm
virtualmark

Viking2 … check out http://jalopnik.com/5141430/how-to-hack-an-electronic-road-sign
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:23pm
big bruv

Redbaier

“D4J is a courageous and persistent man who deserves credit for his efforts to shake the justice system and the Family Court free of the grip of feminist zealots. Once again Bruv, you cannot see the wood for the trees.”

That may or may not be the case, however, from what I can see he is a nut case with an huge anger problem who thinks that it is my job to pay for dead beat fathers who choose not to pay child maintenance when they feel they have been unfairly denied access to their kids.

I also understand that he is on some type of benefit, now, if there is one thing I cannot stand it is a hypocrite, it is all well and good coming here abusing other people for being bludgers but you should at least make sure you are not one yourself.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:24pm
dad4justice

Wrong about benefit blouse you creep. Get your facts right you slimeball.You constantly woffle shit about me to which you no nothing about me. You are the same level as toad and your disgusting and untruthful opinion should have consequences attached. Your vile attack on me is beyond all reason. Go on stand up and be a man have a meeting face to face?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:25pm
big bruv

But you still feel it is my job to pay child maintenance for dead beat dads who neglect their kids?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:28pm
dad4justice

Face to face meeting blouse? Until then you have shown everybody your just a typical keyboard coward. Liberal filth like you have no balls and run a mile when confronted with the truth. Your type shoot people in the back.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:30pm
Redbaiter

“Beck on the other hand is good for nothing moire than comedy.”

The fact that he has come out of nowhere to be the man that the Progressives and Obama and his minions want to stop most of all suggests you’re missing something Bruv.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:30pm
Redbaiter

” I also understand that he is on some type of benefit, now, if there is one thing I cannot stand it is a hypocrite, it is all well and good coming here abusing other people for being bludgers but you should at least make sure you are not one yourself.”

Do you think it is the right thing to do to use someone else’s blog for a long running personal feud?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:33pm
big bruv

Fair point Comrade.

All D4J has to do is stop the threats of violence, answer a simple question and stop being such a dick and I will leave him alone.

Can’t be fairer than that now can I.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:35pm
dad4justice

“Threats of violence.”

Hells Bells more dam lies. I am sick and tired of this deranged creep inventing shit up. Please God give blouse the balls to end this sorry saga at a face to face meeting.Stuff this shit.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:37pm
big bruv

Red

“The fact that he has come out of nowhere to be the man that the Progressives and Obama and his minions want to stop most of all suggests you’re missing something Bruv.”

Why on earth would they want to stop Beck?

He is almost single handedly driving a wedge right through the Republican movement, if this Tea Party nonsense is not knocked on the head in a hurry B Hussein Messiah Obama will sleep walk to a second term.

I dislike Emanuel, Reid, Plastic Pelosi and B Hussein Messiah Obama as much as you but none of them are idiots, they would see Beck as a (and excuse the pun) god send who is going to divide the right and allow them to continue their hard left agenda.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:46pm
toad

Redbaiter said: Do you think it is the right thing to do to use someone else’s blog for a long running personal feud?

It is not a personal feud ‘baiter. I ‘m about as far politically as you can get from big bruv, but we both get very annoyed with d4j’s efforts here. I suspect lots of others here are too.

D4J’s contributions are all abuse, no substance, no logic, and the occasional threat. At least you try to put up some arguments (weak as I think they are) to support Sarah Palin and the Tea Party ‘baiter.

D4J puts up no argument, and just abuses people.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:48pm
toad

big bruv said: …if this Tea Party nonsense is not knocked on the head in a hurry B Hussein Messiah Obama will sleep walk to a second term

I’m hoping they keep it up and stuff the GOP up for the next 20 years – that might be enough time to convince the democrats to do something progressive without fear of an electoral backlash.

I hate FPP, as it is a completely undemocratic electoral system, but a few more years of it, especially if the GOP are locked out of power by right wing Tea Party disaffection, may see some change in the moribund US electoral system.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 9:55pm
Johnboy

“I hate FPP, as it is a completely undemocratic electoral system,”

I can understand that opinion Toad.

FPP of course does tend to favour the strong and keep all the little toadies where they really belong.

That would be out on the street on the benefit, with the megaphones, being ignored, instead of in the House getting paid for by the long suffering taxpayers and still being ignored.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 10:06pm
Dirty Rat

How much you reckon I can make if I went to Scotland and laid her ?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/3363223/Susan-Boyle-looking-for-love
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 10:11pm
Johnboy

$2,000,000 from Worldwide Sacks Ltd.
$3,000,000 from Gillette Ltd.
$500,000 from Asbestos Gloves Ltd. (for unscrewing the light bulb).
$2,000,000 from Penthouse International. (for destroying the candid wedding photos).
$200,000,000 from a grateful world bachelors society whip round (for taking her out of circulation).

etc.etc.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 10:21pm
eszett

eszett, I’m not arguing this from a Christian standpoint. What I am saying is that most religions are able to impose and enforce a moral code. Because they posit a moral lawgiver, a moral judge, and some form of punishment, which then compels people to observe the moral code.

virtualmark, I agree, but aren’t you contradicting yourself? Logically, not all religions can be true. So all other religions have to be made up, especially the ones that have already died out. Consequently all those religious moral codes are based on human experience and expectations are are not by any definition divine or absolute.

There is no moral lawgiver, moral judge or moral executioner, it’s all fantasy. So yes, if you believe in them then they may have some obscure authority, but by no means are there anything but human.

Now take one small step further and add the one religion you left out to the list of fantasies. So now all your religious moral bases are human.

I would argue that the religious based moral code is intellectually lazy and philosophically dishonest. Because they borrow a whole multitude of moral systems, mix it into one big mess and then pick and choose whatever suits them best. Not neccessarily purposefully, but nevertheless consequently. The amount of moral codes in a religion and particularly the abrahamic ones that so openly contradict themselves is astounding.

And does it compel them to follow the rules. Well, no, because the rules can be interpreted in any way to justify anything. How else can you justify the killing of an abortion doctor or a suicide bombings. All these people were not evil, but they truly believed the are morally right and all based on their religion.

Furthermore to the Hitler argument, you have to consider that Hitler did not act alone. You may see him as the symbol of evil, but there were thousands and thousands of Germans (and not just Germans), who in their vast majority were Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike, and happily tortured, shot and gassed millions of Jews (the killer of Christ to some Christians), Gypsies, Homosexuals and other friends of Christianity.

No moral code there to stop these atrocities. And the official churches did not do much either. Sure, there were exceptions, but the church just went along with the system.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 10:28pm
Dirty Rat

that should keep me and Dimebag in hookers for about 257 days
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 10:31pm
Hurf Durf

I love FPP cos then the Gweens won’t be in parliament. Sure, neither will Act, but that’s a price I’m prepared to pay.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 10:45pm
Redbaiter

“they would see Beck as a (and excuse the pun) god send who is going to divide the right and allow them to continue their hard left agenda.”

Bruv, you’re such a damn loon. You have not even addressed the question. If Beck was the key to an Obama victory, then why do they want to shut him down and discredit him more than anyone else?

” Glenn Beck Must Be Stopped!” Keith Olbermann

..and here is the other issue. We’ve had it up to here with compromising arseholes like you and John Key and John McCain and so many other fake right wingers.

Fuck em. I would rather see Obama win any day than hand power to another bunch of traitors. It has to stop somewhere and some time, and it might as well be here and now. No more compromising with evil.

If the Republican Party has to be divided and lose before it returns to its small government Conservative roots then so be it. The traitors and “bipartisan” dwarfs have to be purged. They can reach across the isle to the Progressives somewhere else.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 10:52pm
Shunda barunda

“big bruv said: …if this Tea Party nonsense is not knocked on the head in a hurry B Hussein Messiah Obama will sleep walk to a second term

I’m hoping they keep it up and stuff the GOP up for the next 20 years – that might be enough time to convince the democrats to do something progressive without fear of an electoral backlash.”

You may be showing a lack of understanding of Americans there Toad.
I think there would be a civil war before that happened.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 10:58pm
toad

Yep. fair enough Shunda. Whenever I have been to New York or LA or San Francisco or Chicago or Detroit I have never seen the element of US society you refer to. Mind you, I’ve never been anywhere else in the US.

Seems like it is the “Disunited States of America” .

Will the enlightened egalitarian States (which are where the money is made) eventually cut off the backward redneck ones that don’t pull their weight economically?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 11:19pm
Jack5

Chhtoniid, without getting into the religion brawl, I question your 4.18pm post about German Army belt buckles.

In the First World War, German soldiers often had Gott Mit Uns belt buckles, with the German
Crown attached – see this picture http://www.germanwarbooty.com/buckles%20b723.htm

The German Army in World War 2 merely replaced the crown with a swastika. The Gott Mitt Uns was from the German-Prussian army tradition. I would say the phrase reflected the Prussian military tradition rather than Hitler’s influence.

The Waffen SS, the most Nazi and Hitler-loyal of the German Armed Forces in World War 2 did not have “Gott Mit Uns” on its belt buckles and all Christian symbols and celebrations were discouraged, down to church marriages being banned.

Here’s a link to an SS buckle: http://www.germanwarbooty.com/buckles%20b993.htm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 23, 2010 11:59pm
Chthoniid

I think for the argument that Hitler merely perpetuated a Prussian military tradition by including the religious statement on belt buckles is not entirely convincing.

I don’t doubt that Hitler had a fruit-salad of ideas based on Christian, pagan and occult thinking. I seriously doubt that this meant he was an atheist advancing a secularisation agenda.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 7:28am
Scott

eszett and virtualmark — this is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. Logically all religions cannot be true. They may have some truth in them. Christians would insist on the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the supreme example of God coming to Earth so that we may know him. Although other religions like Islam and Mormonism acknowledged Jesus to some extent, they do not give him his true weight as the son of God.

Now as to the question, does this mean other religions are man-made ? I would actually say that other religions are more deceived than deliberate fabrications. For example I think Joseph Smith did probably have a spiritual encounter but not with God. In the same way Muhammad did have a spiritual encounter, but not with the God of the Bible. Both in my opinion encountered the other team — the deceiver, the accuser, known to us as Satan.

Now not everything in Islam or Mormonism is wrong. There would be some things we can all agree on. But from a Christian point of view true faith must lead to Jesus Christ.

“I would argue that the religious based moral code is intellectually lazy and philosophically dishonest. Because they borrow a whole multitude of moral systems, mix it into one big mess and then pick and choose whatever suits them best. Not neccessarily purposefully, but nevertheless consequently.”

That is an interesting line of thought. I would argue just the opposite. As virtualmark has persuasively argued, atheism is the one that is borrowing from a multitude of moral systems and making a big mess. Essentially atheism relies on some Christian thought, eg you should be kind to people, without the philosophical basis for “kindness” in this case.

Actually atheism is about the survival of the fittest, the law of the jungle — these seem to me to be the necessary application of an atheist philosophy. When atheism becomes the dominant worldview in a society then that’s when the killing starts. In New Zealand today we have 18,000 abortions a year. The next step is euthanasia — where old people will be sacrificed. After that who knows? When human life has no value — if all we are is highly evolved amoeba, then why should we not get rid of people, the old and the unborn child, who are inconvenient to us?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 10:37am
Scott

Chthoniid — I would agree with your reference to Hitler. I don’t think he was an atheist. My argument is that he was not a Christian.

As virtualmark has argued Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche. And Nietzsche was influenced by evolutionary ideas such as survival of the fittest and the master race coming out on top. Now the link with atheism is that its intellectual foundation is also Darwin’s theory of evolution. I would argue that Hitler was heavily influenced by Darwinism.

I agree with the point that Hitler needed a lot of help.Many a German abandoned his or her Christian principles in WW2 to embrace Nazism. Nazism had its own religious symbols such as its own kind of baptism, its own sacred book “Mein Kampf” and its own cross-the swastika. But Hitler and Nazism was about Germans abandoning their christian faith,not practicing it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 10:47am
Pete George

Both in my opinion encountered the other team — the deceiver

Scott, have you ever considered the possibility you are the one being fooled? You have been taught what you believe, been convinced of it, by other imperfect humans.

Humans survived atheism for a lot longer than they have survived (as a race, not a lot of individuals) Christanity (which only a minority have ever believed in).

Many other species manage to survive without believing in gods, and with their own forms of morality.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 10:50am
Pete George

the link with atheism is that its intellectual foundation is also Darwin’s theory of evolution.

That doesn’t make sense.

Atheism is not believing in gods, an absence of beliefs due to an absence of evidence. Evolution is an established and growing body of sound science with increasing amounts of evidence.

Many atheists and Christians accept the basis of evolution. You can hardly claim those Christians are being deceived by “the other team”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 10:54am
Ryan Sproull

There were atheists long before Darwin. Long before Jesus, even.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 11:04am
Ryan Sproull

Actually atheism is about the survival of the fittest, the law of the jungle — these seem to me to be the necessary application of an atheist philosophy.

Atheism is the position that there are no gods. There are absolutely no values entailed in atheism.

When human life has no value — if all we are is highly evolved amoeba, then why should we not get rid of people, the old and the unborn child, who are inconvenient to us?

When human life has no value – if all we are is souls inhabiting bodies, then why should we not get rid of people, the old and the unborn child, who are inconvenient to us?

My point is, nothing about atheism entails that human life has no value. Also, nothing about atheism entails that human life has value. Nothing about atheism entails anything about value at all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 11:10am
Scott

Hi Pete — no I would argue atheism has always been a minority religious position and always will be. Indeed the view that we will all become secular progressives, common a few years ago, has steadily become discredited because of all the growth of religious faiths around the world. Many people know that Islam is growing rapidly, even among well-educated British children of Muslim immigrants and black American people.

What is less well known is the rapid growth of Christianity throughout the world — particularly in very populous areas such as Africa, Asia and South America. The Church of Jesus Christ is now larger than it has ever been. I understand that more people would consider themselves Christian than any other religion. And the number of people who would describe themselves as atheist is actually very small — compared to the total population of the world.

Ryan — agree with your point on atheism — it existed before Darwinism. However atheism as it is practised today rests on the intellectual foundation of Darwinism. We know there is no God because evolution tells us that everything involved naturally with no need for God.

I know Pete George will be horrified by this, but there are many people who do not believe in the theory of evolution. I actually think to believe in evolution takes a lot of faith.
The theory of evolution boils down to this — in the beginning for no particular reason, nothing exploded and became everything. For no particular reason everything became planets and stars and became an orderly universe with laws we can understand. For no particular reason intelligent life evolved, with thinking and morals. But thinking and morals is really all just a joke. We are the products of a heartless universe who does not care about us. The universe is one giant killing machine that allows only the fittest to survive. There is no moral code, love is but a figment of our imagination, there is no free will, no afterlife, nothing of any value whatsoever.

But here we are — thinking, feeling, loving, caring. Darwinism makes no sense. It does not explain the human condition nor can it form the basis of a workable moral society.

Neither can it be scientifically proved. How was the gap from nonlife to life bridged? How did nothing explode? Where is even one good example of evolution in action? I don’t know of any.

Evolution is a fairytale resting on a fantasy. The fantasy is we can escape from moral responsibility towards God by believing he isn’t there.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 11:18am
Pete George

There is some obvious confusion about what atheism is. This may because of a common tendency:

Me religious, you atheist.
Me right about everything and good, you must be wrong about everything and bad.

Also:
Me religious, you criticise me (or my religion) so you must be wrong and bad.

Similarly applies to:
Me conservative, you socialist.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 11:20am
Pete George

I’m not horrified to know that many people don’t want to believe in the extensive science of evolution. People used to believe the earth was flat, that the earth was the centre of the universe, that there were multiple gods, and all sorts of other things that didn’t stack up.

Most people eventually learn from ongoing discoveries. Some don’t want to.

Evolution is a fairytale resting on a fantasy.

That’s funny. The parables about God with their many contradictions must all be true? Does anyone fantasise about living forever?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 11:34am
Ryan Sproull

Ryan — agree with your point on atheism — it existed before Darwinism. However atheism as it is practised today rests on the intellectual foundation of Darwinism. We know there is no God because evolution tells us that everything involved naturally with no need for God.

Scott, atheism isn’t “practised”. It is the intellectual position that no gods exist. It also does not rest on the evolutionary alternative to “God created everything as it is” any more than it rests on the physics-based alternative to “God makes the rainbows”.

I know Pete George will be horrified by this, but there are many people who do not believe in the theory of evolution. I actually think to believe in evolution takes a lot of faith.

This statement usually precedes a demonstration of lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution boils down to this — in the beginning for no particular reason, nothing exploded and became everything.

The Big Bang theory is not a part of the theory of evolution.

For no particular reason everything became planets and stars and became an orderly universe with laws we can understand.

The physical laws you’re referring to (like gravity) are the particular reasons why everything became planets and stars.

For no particular reason intelligent life evolved, with thinking and morals.

Now we finally reach the theory of evolution. I don’t know what you think “no particular reason” means, but the theory of evolution is all about providing explanatory reasons for the variety of life evolving.

But thinking and morals is really all just a joke.

This has no place in the theory of evolution.

We are the products of a heartless universe who does not care about us.

This has no place in the theory of evolution.

The universe is one giant killing machine that allows only the fittest to survive.

Kind of. It’s more that what’s best suited to survive is best suited to survive.

There is no moral code,

This has no place in the theory of evolution.

love is but a figment of our imagination,

I’m not even sure what this means.

there is no free will, no afterlife, nothing of any value whatsoever.

None of these things have anything to do with the theory of evolution.

But here we are — thinking, feeling, loving, caring. Darwinism makes no sense.

Scott, you’ve demonstrated that you don’t actually know what the theory of evolution is. It’s little wonder it makes no sense to you.

It does not explain the human condition nor can it form the basis of a workable moral society.

It’s not intended to form the basis of a workable moral society. “Forming the basis of a workable moral society” is not a requirement for something to be true. And it is probably not intended to explain what you mean by the human condition, either.

Neither can it be scientifically proved. How was the gap from nonlife to life bridged?

How is the gap from liquid water to snowflake bridged? But the origin of life is not really within the scope of the theory of evolution.

How did nothing explode?

The origin of the universe is certainly not within the scope of the theory of evolution.

Where is even one good example of evolution in action? I don’t know of any.

Bacteria strains becoming resistant to antibiotics is one obvious example of evolution in action.

Evolution is a fairytale resting on a fantasy. The fantasy is we can escape from moral responsibility towards God by believing he isn’t there.

Again, this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Scott, imagine if I said, “Christianity is crazy! You believe that 10 guys named Jesus fought the Romans bare-handed and beat the leader of the Romans, who was named Satan! They did it for their dad, whose name was God, and if you take a bath in human blood, one of the guys named Jesus will take you to their paradise planet, Heaven. Also, Christians believe that garlic is wrong to eat! You’d have to be crazy to be Christian!”

Your response would be, I imagine, something like mine: you clearly know what Christianity is well enough to be able to call it crazy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 12:25pm
dad4justice

Rather angry scenes at the Christchurch Courthouse this morning as the young thug appeared on the murder of the elderly Cashmere woman. Unfortunately such senseless violence seems to be the kiwi norm since the pc socialists took control of our once proud and safe Nation. Christchurch is a dangerous city. Sad to watch it over run with evil!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 12:44pm
Chthoniid

But here we are — thinking, feeling, loving, caring. Darwinism makes no sense. It does not explain the human condition nor can it form the basis of a workable moral society.

Yes, it does. For the umpteenth time, this was answered by Hamilton in the 1960s with his work on kinship mechanisms for altruism and by Trivers in the early 1970s with his work on non-kinship mechanisms for altruism.

Neither can it be scientifically proved.

Yes it has, again go back to the paper I cited earlier- Brown et al., (1998) Multiple Duplications of Yeast hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment, Molecular Biological Evolution 15(8):931-942. Evolution occurred and was mapped out down to changes to the individual genes and overall genome.

How was the gap from nonlife to life bridged?

The gap between life and nonlife has always been fuzzy. It’s not clear today that viruses are alive. The point however, is that there are natural explanations for this, that are being investigated and explored, and seem to be very credible. Nothing points to a unique divine creator.

How did nothing explode? Where is even one good example of evolution in action? I don’t know of any.

Why would anything explode?

There are plenty of good examples of evolution in action. Your ignorance of them does not constitute evidence of their failure.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 12:45pm
Ryan Sproull

Your response would be, I imagine, something like mine: you clearly know what Christianity is well enough to be able to call it crazy.

Sorry, this should be “you clearly DON’T know what Christianity is well enough to call it crazy”.

And D4J, this is yesterday’s GD. You should post your comment again in today’s.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 12:46pm
Chthoniid

The theory of evolution boils down to this — in the beginning for no particular reason, nothing exploded and became everything. For no particular reason everything became planets and stars and became an orderly universe with laws we can understand.

As Ryan has already pointed out, big bang cosmology has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Nonetheless if we are talking about inflationary theories of the universe then:
(1) there was something, it was a singularity. The characteristics of this include zero dimension and infinite density.
(2) It rapidly inflated at super hot temperatures
(3) The predictable outcomes of this inflation were the scientific laws we now can perceive, the space-time dimension (noting relativity theory has dispensed with the idea of absolute measures of time), matter and as it cooled, galaxies.

The inflationary model of the universe has the attractions of explaining the observed expansion of the universe, it’s general ‘flatness’, the current movement of galaxies, the Hubble constant and levels of background radiation.

The biblical cosmological model appears to have been pulled out of the arses of some bronze-age shepherds & makes no usable predictions about the age of the universe, properties or structure.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 12:57pm
Scott

Gentlemen please — the theory of evolution is all-encompassing, it constitutes an all-encompassing explanation of how the world began, how the universe began, how life formed etc etc.

Ryan — not everything boils down to scientific test tubes. I am pointing out what happens when we believe in the theory of evolution and the attitudes that come from it. Those are the implications of the theory of evolutionary Ryan. No purpose, no meaning, no life after death, it’s all just meaningless. Surely you can grasp that?

Chthoniid — this is really a continuation of our previous conversation. I asked you for one good example of evolution. You come up with bacteria “evolving”. I say to you that is pathetic. One good example that’s all I want. And you come up with bacteria, who previously were bacteria, and in the end are still bacteria. And you think that proves all the transitions and that all life was formed from bacteria to elephants? You think that proves evolution? You have bacteria, you experiment on them, and you still have bacteria? That is pathetic. I ask you again — one good example of evolution. Something becoming something else. Not something that is being speculated about last week. A good example, tested over time, that scientists have looked at, of evolution actually occurring. I think that’s a fair question?

To all of you I say this — the theory of evolution is based on that one time at least nonlife evolved into life. That is a fact we can agree on I think.

Now that problem has proved insoluble. No one knows how nonlife has become life. In fact the latest conjecture is that we were seeded from the stars. Which takes us to other planets, of which there is no evidence, which removes the whole theory from the realm of science. We might as well scientifically postulate heaven. So evolution is a nonstarter until it bridges the gap from nonlife to life.

I think it’s all rubbish. I think Ryan and others, you are putting your faith in a phantasm.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 2:02pm
virtualmark

Afternoon chaps.

Scott … I think it’s fair to say the Theory of Evolution kicks in with the first “life” … shall we say the first single cell organism with the bio-chemical reactions we see in our own cells … and explains how that initial fledgling life eventually developed into the huge range of animals and plants we see today.

There’s a different area of science that speaks to how a singularity “exploded” in the Big Bang, flung lots of atoms to the four winds, and then that all coalesced into stars and planets and the like.

It is fair to say though that science so far can’t explain how every atom we currently have in the universe came into being and came to be gathered in that single singularity at the time of the Big Bang. Science can back-track from where we are today to where everything was a few billion years ago … but it can’t explain how everything was created.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 2:09pm
Pete George

Evolution is not “the Anti-God”.

I understand how evolution threatens a minority Christian view of how the world as we know it developed, but it is just one of many parts of science that threatens or has disproved that extreme position.

Where is hell, where is heaven? Not where people used to think they were.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 2:20pm
virtualmark

Ryan,

Atheism is the position that there are no gods. There are absolutely no values entailed in atheism.

My point is, nothing about atheism entails that human life has no value. Also, nothing about atheism entails that human life has value. Nothing about atheism entails anything about value at all.

Technically correct. Atheism is simply the position that there are no gods. Probably fair to say that modern-day atheism goes a little beyond that to positively assert that those who might believe in gods are therefore inherently wrong-headed. But as you say, atheism itself is not a belief system.

But everyone has a belief system, so if you agree with atheism then presumably your belief system is one constructed without any deities. Secular humanism is the most common atheistic-based belief system today … I’m not even sure if there are any others?

And secular humanism does inevitably say that human life has no intrinsic value over and above any other form of life.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 2:20pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan — not everything boils down to scientific test tubes. I am pointing out what happens when we believe in the theory of evolution and the attitudes that come from it. Those are the implications of the theory of evolutionary Ryan. No purpose, no meaning, no life after death, it’s all just meaningless. Surely you can grasp that?

I think you only see it that way because you can only conceive of meaning being grounded in your particular beliefs. So it’s not that the theory of evolution or any of the other theories you lumped in with it necessarily entail “meaninglessness”, but rather that because you believe these theories are incompatible with your own beliefs, and your own beliefs are the only possible source of meaning, you cannot imagine someone holding them true and also valuing life.

But more to the point, I don’t really understand your concern. What do you mean by “purpose” and “meaning”? Why does the absence of life after death affect it? Why is a life that goes on forever more “meaningful” than a life that ends? I think that if you try to clearly expand what you mean by “meaning”, you’ll find that it can be expressed in ways that are not so inextricably linked with your beliefs.

To all of you I say this — the theory of evolution is based on that one time at least nonlife evolved into life. That is a fact we can agree on I think.

Not really. The theory of evolution is technically the theory of how life evolved. The origin of life is a different question, and many people in the world believe that God started evolution.

Now that problem has proved insoluble. No one knows how nonlife has become life.

You are using unnecessarily emotive terms with “life” and “non-life”. Life is simply self-replicating patterns of matter. Some patterns of matter do not self-replicate and others do. We know how non-life could have become life, but without being able to travel back in time, we don’t know which of the possibilities actually occurred, or if it was in a manner no one’s imagined yet.

In fact the latest conjecture is that we were seeded from the stars. Which takes us to other planets, of which there is no evidence, which removes the whole theory from the realm of science. We might as well scientifically postulate heaven.

The idea that we were “seeded from the stars” is not recent, nor is it particularly popular, if you mean that life on earth was begun by aliens. “Seeded from the stars” in the sense that interaction between the earth and things crashing into it was involved in abiogenesis – that’s just one of many many theories. Again, no time travel, so we can never know for sure, even when we can replicate it in a lab.

So evolution is a nonstarter until it bridges the gap from nonlife to life.

Again, and I said this in an earlier post, evolution does not address what you imagine as a “gap” between non-life and life. The theory of evolution deals solely with life.

I think it’s all rubbish. I think Ryan and others, you are putting your faith in a phantasm.

You will have to demonstrate that you clearly understand the theories before calling them phantasms.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 2:22pm
Kris K

I am enjoying the ‘debate’ immensely – well done, Scott.

Chthoniid threw the “Yeast hexose Transport Genes” ‘example’ at me the other day as an example of one kind becoming another kind – of course, as you pointed out (also) it’s still a bacteria, and IS NOT evidence of one kind (a chicken) becoming another kind (a dog).

And when someone states the following:

(1) there was something, it was a singularity. The characteristics of this include zero dimension and infinite density.
(2) It rapidly inflated at super hot temperatures
(3) The predictable outcomes of this inflation were the scientific laws we now can perceive, the space-time dimension (noting relativity theory has dispensed with the idea of absolute measures of time), matter and as it cooled, galaxies.

– you know they’ve moved from science into the area of faith/religion.
And as you stated (and I have previously) they don’t even blink when they (some ‘scientists’ (or is that Darwinian high priests)) move into such areas as ‘alien seeding’ to get around the issue of non life becoming life.

Bottom line:
We ALL prescribe to some form of religion – some of us are just more honest about it than are others.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 2:26pm
Pete George

And secular humanism does inevitably say that human life has no intrinsic value over and above any other form of life.

Fair enough, why should human life have a higher intrinsic value? Some Christians think their form of human life has a higher value than others, as do some Muslims. Throughout history some groups of humans have put more value on their lives than others – eg royalty, masters over slaves, occupiers of territories and countries, those without blonde or ginger hair, IQ snobs etc etc.

So taking that a step further it’s easy to see why some humans think they have a higher value than other species, and it’s easy to imagine why they would imagine stories that “explain” why.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 24, 2010 2:29pm

More comments:

‹
1
2
3
›

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Not Colin’s fault

The Principals Federation Survey »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
This Weeks Email To Prime Minister Luxon.
No Minister
Daily review 22/11/2024
The Standard
Do the KCs believe in democracy
Utopia
More young offenders will get boot camp, bus drivers will get some protection – and there’s relief for southern farmers
Point of Order
Sowell says
Hompaddock
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d