This is just as much a death worshiping cult as Islam.
The clothes are better, they speak our language, and they aren't willing to do the dirty work themselves. At the end of the day though, they seek the same thing: death, destruction and despair.
It's inhuman. Its vile. It's evil in nice clothes.
Apparently, I missed this article about Seung Cho, the Virginia Tech killer, when it came out last month. The article wasn't all that surprising, painting a common portrait of a young man exhibiting an ever escalating symptomology of Chronic Mental Illness over many many years.
What pisses me off in reading the details of his derangement is that, instead of seeking out the medical and mental health professionals best equipped to deal with Cho's worsening situation, his mother, full of desperation and maternal concern, sought help from fucking witchdoctors:
Hyang In Cho was so desperate to find help for her silent, angry son that she sought out some members of One Mind Church in Woodbridge to heal him of what the church's head pastor called "demonic power."
For the love of Cthulhu.
While there are a host of cultural idiosyncrasies that must have come into play, Cho's mother was still from South Korea, an advanced and prosperous nation offering health care services roughly on par with the United States. Modern medicine is common in Seoul. She, her husband and her daughter didn't grow up on Mars. Instead of seeking help from social service organizations, instead of petitioning the Courts for conservatorship of her son, she chatts up a wacko by the name of Rev. Dong Cheol Lee, of the One Mind Church in Woodbridge, VA who tells her
"[Cho's] problem needed to be solved by spiritual power," said Lee, whose church members met with Cho and his mother. "That's why she came to our church -- because we were helping several people like him." Those churchgoers told Hyang In Cho that her son was afflicted by demonic power and needed deliverance, Lee said.
This man's magic has done nothing but make his own ego and the coffers of his church less empty.
...over the death of Rev. Falwell. He was inimicable not just to Gays but to the principals of the very Republic itself.
I am sad for his family and his friends. They loved and cared for him deeply and are no doubt devastated by his passing. Condolences on their loss and their pain.
The 21st Century is going to see revolution in biology and biological sciences akin to the 19th Century's revolution in industry and the 20th in technology. Navigating the long term ethical dimensions of that new found knowledge is going to be hard enough for a species adapted to only thinking about near-term consequences. If we also have to deal with superstitious crap like the above "religious morality" guiding us, we're screwed.
Ms. Dalton, of AFT fame, sent me a message in response to the post below. While it would be a rude reposting her email -- as I didn't ask permission to do that first -- it's not inappropriate to say that in said email she just doesn't get it. For her own edification, and for anyone else who isn't clear about what Sonja and, by extension, the whole of the "Americans For Truth," did wrong, the following is a open note, explaining just how asinine their actions are.
Dear Sonja,
You can justify your actions by whatever measure of superstition and noblesse oblige you desire, but at the end of the day, you still turned your organization loose on a 16-year old who was merely rapping with his 'mates.
Since you seem to have a problem understanding this, allow me to reframe your actions for you. I used to do a lot of reframing when I was a county Protective Social Worker. For some reason, some people just couldn't grasp the fact that being an ass to others wasn't okay. It fell on my shoulders to point out why.
Well, me and Mr. Rogers. But he's dead.
So since you obviously weren't paying attention the first time Mr. Rogers taught the important lesson of "How to Play Well with Others," I'll try to fill his shoes with the following example that illustrates exactly how you screwed up.
Ready?
Okay.
After shouting your incendiary opinions into the Public Square -- and hey, you knew people wouldn't agree with you, you knew a lot of people wouldn't agree with you from the get-go -- you overheard a young man talking off the cuff with his friends about his emotional reaction to your point of view. He found you to be petty, prejudiced, and a bigot and shared as much with his friends.
Angered by his comments, and contemptuous not only of his peers, but his peer group too, you refrained from addressing him personally, by way of a quick note, or even a comment on his blog. Rather, while dressed in the uniform of your employer, you proceeded to bitch-slap the young man, film it, and play it back in the Public Square for all to see. Oh, and you expected kudos for your actions.
Is that any clearer, Sonja? If your error still remains illusive, I'll try to explain it to you in still simpler terms. Smaller words? Cartoons? No dessert? I really want you to understand.
The unofficial video of the execution, filmed on the mobile cell phone of one of the officials present is sure to further inflame sectarianism, because it is clearly a Shia execution.
Men are heard talking, one of them is called Ali. As the executioners argue over how to best position the rope on his neck Saddam calls out to god...Referring to Shias, one official says "those who pray for Muhamad and the family of Muhamad have won!" Others triumphantly respond in the Shia chant...
Others then add the part chanted by supporters of Muqtada al Sadr: "And speed his (the Mahdi's) return! And damn his enemies! And make his son victorious! Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!"... Saddam looks down and says "Is this your manhood...?"
As the rope is put around Saddam's neck somebody shouts "long live Muhamad Baqir al Sadr!" referring to an important Shia cleric who founded the Dawa Party and was also Muqtada's relative...Saddam then says the Shahada, or testimony, that there is no god but Allah and Muhamad is his prophet. When he tries to say it again the trap door opens and he falls through to be hung. One man then shouts that "the tyranny has ended!" and others call out triumphal Shia chants...
In my never ending explorations of the Blogsphere...okay, I was bored but that doesn't make as snappy an introduction...I stumbled across a rather wonderful site, with a nifty point of view that just doesn't get nearly the exposure it should. Well, let's correct that right now, okay?
There has been a lot of talk about the Taliban distributing a book of rules (Layeha) to 33 members of their Shura (Council)...Regarding its authenticity, I wouldn’t be able to confirm it but it seems that all the rules are in-line with the Shari’ah... It has been translated into English and passed around from website to website, so much so, that CNN obtained a copy and decided to...show their extreme hatred for the Shari’ah...and they are too scared to admit that they hate what Allah has revealed and they are too scared to admit that they are against Allah ‘Azza wa Jall. If CNN wants proof that they are fighting Allah – whey they clearly and unmistakably are – then I will gladly prove it to them. So we say to CNN: Shut your trap.
Pithy prose, no?
It's from the site The Ignored Puzzle Pieces of Knowledge, devoted to the belief thatthe Islamic Caliphate holds the true essence of "freedom", "justice", and "equality". Yeah, Dominionists by any other creed...
The proud owner of the site is a gentleman by the name of "Inshallahshaheed," which my bad cobbled together from Wikipedia translation skills means something along the line of "If God Wills Me to Be a Martyr" or "A Martyr, God Willing."
And since Sky Fairies don't exist, the only "will" we need concern ourselves with is his own.
Anyway, what follows are the do's and don'ts every good Soldier of Allah should ascribe to... or at least thoughts whose fealty rests with the Taliban. Given how convoluted and incestuous the fanatical Muslim family tree is, rules can very between one Murderous Mahdi to the next. Get some militant Sunnis and Shi'a together for lunch and bullets will fly over who should be killed for what transgression against God, let me tell you.
After his lengthy praise of this medieval muck, I pointed out that Rule 25, outlining the grounds for murdering a teacher, weren't very civilized. I'm kind of big on defending teachers who teach. Call me silly, but even if a teacher's ideas are reprehensible, killing them just doesn't seem to be appropriate. But then maybe I'm old fashioned. These kids and their Pan-Islamic Caliphate dreams, you know?
A torrent of soulful slams followed, a litany of "My Perfectly Imagined Groups Beliefs and Actions are Better than the Imperfect Actions and Beliefs of Yours." The kind of argumentation kids on the playground make when outlining the merits of Superman vs. Batman. I expect more from a learned Mujahid than
Open your eyes to reality. When was the last time you heard about a Mujahideen army doing any of these things? The difference between us and you is that we live for the sake of God and you live for the sake of the Devil.
Come on. Without the distraction of girls, you'd think these guys could settle in and come up with some decent, modern justifications for killing teachers. Or women. Or infidels. But no. That's First Year College argumentation, not the keen insight of a Madrassa molded mind.
Why, it's like in that all male environment, he found something else to occupy his time...
In light of his list of America's sins -- Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, David Hasselhoff -- I posted the following reply on his site:
When was the last time you heard about a Mujahideen army doing any of these things?
When I heard about the 1998 massacre of 600 Uzbek villagers by the then self anointed soldiers of the Mahdi’s armies… the 1998 capture of Mazar-e Sharif? Human Rights Watch documented over 2,000 men and boys were executed, while women and girls were raped by Muslimeen? …and the 2001 massacre in Yakaolang of 170+ Hazaras by the Taliban, who fired rockets into a mosque where some 73 women, children and elderly men had taken shelter.
While the destruction of the Bamyan Buddha’s was bad enough, the Human Rights Watch reported summary executions of local residents was a far greater atrocity? Come on, oh Great Martyr of Allah, where does the November 16th 1999 Shomaili Plains massacre factor in to your perfect Islamic state?
Your silent witness to the dismal treatment of women and children under the years of Taliban rule in Afghanistan is notable. Your ignorance Your sanctioning of “God’s Will” for the denial of education to women, their random beatings for minor infractions and the denial of needed medical care do to restrictions under the Taliban is perverse.
No. The record of Khilafahs, in any of its forms, from any of its declarants, be they Whabbi, Sunni or Shia, Taliban or Al Qaeda, is dismal, a reign tyranny of death and destruction to any who dare live under them or to oppose them.
Yes, I’m one of the first to admit that, the West in general and American’s in particular screwed up royally in Iraq – a debt we’ll be paying off in blond, money, and tears for the next 50 years. The great thing about the West though is that, sooner or later, we throw the bastards out of office, the crimes are documented in countless courts, both legal and public, and people eventually are brought to account for their actions. You don’t even consider the sadism of your Mujahid wrong. We at least have multiple methods in place to ensure such crimes don’t go unpunished forever. Our system is slow, but it’s a damn site better than the one you advocate.
If you didn’t know, we already have Communists who teach in America. We have Fascists, we have Leftists, and we have Rightists. We’ve got everyone in between. We may yell and scream about what they teach, but we don’t make it a policy, or even a preference, to kill them for their teachings.
Oh, and don’t go preaching about “fags” in the American armed forces, let alone American culture. How does that old Afghan saying go? ” Even pigeons who fly over the lands of the Pashtun cover their rear with a wing?
Only my wonderful words didn't survive his hand.
If you click over to his site, you'll see that he lopped off everything from "When" to "them." Now, I'm a writer. I'm used to being edited. A snip here and a tuck there can really help the flow of my intent to note that no system is perfect, but that the religiously justified, tribal based barbarism of the Taliban is far worse than the Rule of Law we have in the West. (Well, until Bush was elected at any rate.)
The way he chopped, it gives the impression all I wanted to get across was the mistakes of the USA. Bah. I'm honest about my country. Unlike many out and about, the greatness of the USA, and the Western world, is that we can discuss our mistakes and argue about what needs to be done to make things Right. But that isn't my -only- point.
We've accomplished so much in the Western world, quality of life, education, security and support for a vast many people, more so than any collection of empires in the history of the planet. The problem, and the Devil is always in the Details, that the standard of living, security and prosperity we've generated only has full effect for 1 percent of the populace.
There are still so many others, scattered in our own borders, concentrated beyond, that still need help. There are arguments on how to give that help, even a debate as to if we should give it, but such discussions wouldn't occur, if we the real possibility didn't exist for it to be accomplished.
As an aside, if you are going to cut out a sizable section, the bulk of an argument, from a person's post, don't turn around then and post a half hearted response to the excised section on your comments page. That's just dumb. And dishonest. I'm probably just bitching, but it tells me Mr. My-Super-Santa-Claus-is-Better-than-Your-Super- Santa-Claus doesn't have as much faith in his ability to defend his point as he'd like.
Just to close out... it's Friday and you have parties to get to...the colorful commentary from the other visitors from the Jihadi site were a treasure to read too.
For ur kind information this happened after the fall of communism when u perverts sensed that communism was no longer an enemy.
Any way mr.jody whatever ur complaints or arguments might be the fact is u americans are losing everywhere and soon its gonna be the end of american might(treachery) along with its cow-boy culture cos “when truth is hurled against falsehood, falsehood perishes for falsehood is by it’s nature bound to perish”.
No. Usually what gets hurled next are nukes, and whomever has the most nukes wins.
I want my 40 acres and a mule, which in today’s economy is 80 acres and a free education, with two brand new hybrid Hondas to replace the mules.
About all you are going to find under a Caliphate are lots of acres and lots of mules. The Hondas won't be working at that point. See above.
America needs not worry about ‘foreign’ terrorists, they need to worry about ME, a Black man who knows this country, has hideouts on Indian reservations, and has inspired independent cells to fight for Allah’s Word right here in the US until Shariah is the law of the land for the Muslims, dhimmi status for the non-Muslims, and the racial injustices of America are paid at the expense of those who inherit the wealth wrongly acquired from our labor and their lands. It’s already started, and now even I can’t call it off or stop its growth. So your best bet is to just prepare for America’s own civil war at anytime, and be ready for your non-muslim male counterparts to pay a small tax called jizyah.
Having maps from AAA, a hotel room on an Indian Reservation, and a few friends who listen to your rants, doesn't make you a Jihadi.
The Christian Alliance for Progress and other Christian groups say that the Bible-based game Left Behind: Eternal Forces promotes religious intolerance and violence.
Israel's attorney general Meni Mazuz refused to ban a gay pride parade that is scheduled for this coming Friday in Jerusalem. Instead, he instructed gay activists to meet with police today and come up with an alternative plan for the march.
Ultra-orthodox Jews continued to riot in protest over the weekend as they have every single night over the past week, lighting fires in the street, throwing stones, and vandalizing property.
Gay pride planners said they were open to changing the route of the parade so that it did not run through Jerusalem's city center, thus lessening the potential for protest and violence. Police were not sure if this would have any impact on reactions from the Jewish ultra-orthodox Haredim.Fundamentalist religion, of whatever stripe, is incompatible with a pluralistic, secular society.
*Okay, Hasidic Judaism is an 18th Century phenomenon, but superstition is superstition.
It's no small secret that much of an author's writing is drawn from the deeper recesses of their soul; the things they have on their minds, in their hearts, even ponder in moments of private contemplation, tend to come out rather explicitly in their writings. Oftentimes it's the only place it can.
I wondered then what a power mad, homophobic, self-loathing, evolution denying, Christian preacher would scribble when alone in a private hotel room. What would the recently disgraced Pastor Ted draw forth from the still, quiet places, deep inside?
Shockingly, it wasn't a personals add -- it seems he answers those in hotel rooms -- but something else, something queerly different: He writes a self-help diet and exercise book. Yup. "The Jerusalem Diet" a handy guide to not just looking good and feeling great, but in looking good and feel great the Jesus way (as channeled by Ted.) So what solutions does Ted impart? What does he say you need to do in order to have a healthy, happy, and wonderful life?
Eat plenty of fruits and nuts.
No, I didn't make that up.
Curious, I did a little more Amazon searching and found some of Ted's other books. Because everyone is pressed for time, and since I read so very, very fast, I took the liberty to summarize, briefly, what his more popular books are about.
"Letters from Home:"An excerpt of which begins "Dear Dad, What am I supposed to tell Mom about your visits to Uncle Mike the Masseuse again?"
"Loving Your City into the Kingdom of Heaven". Frankly, I was confused by this one. I got the impression that "Loving" and "into the Kingdom of Heaven" meant something very, very different to Ted than to me. I also think he was using "City" as a unit of measurement. Strange boy that Teddy.
Okay, okay. You caught me. I didn't really read those books. I have no idea what's actually in them. I'm just assuming that books written by a closeted 'Mo would, in retrospect, show the influence of his repressed desires on not just the choice of topics, but the situations he'd draw from in addressing them.
...[S]cience is an entirely human endeavor, profound and powerful, and that it does not exclude any piece of our world. Humanist, scientist, citizen, thinker, communicator -- these represent the best values of our culture.
I wish more people were up to the challenge of raising children, but especially pretty early on, the skills it takes to manage and maintain a life in our crazy culture is beyond most. It was always frightening to me that the people least likely to use condoms, rhythm methods, or abortion are those most likely to use drugs, drop out of school, have psychological problems and produce litter after litter of unwanted children. Or maybe I'm just jaded from years as a social worker.
Nah.
I know there are people who use abortion as their primary method of birth control, but outside of empirical data to the contrary, that's just not that common. Leaving aside the fact that a clump of four or six cells is no more a sentient human being than a cluster of squamous cells removed from the side of the face, the clients I worked with have always agonized over their decisions, yea or nay, for the terminations they've had. I personally wish some who'd said yes had said no and vice-versa, but then there you go.
The choice was never mine to make and the responsibility, never mine to take.
Dear, sweet Christine of Talkwisdom fame commented about how the Reverend Ray Comfort has provided powerful critiques of evolution and masterful, well-supported defenses of Intelligent Design as the true explanation of the diversity of life around us though his numerous books and articles.
Since we're all pressed for time and couldn't possibly make our way through all 50 of his books, I thought I'd provide this quickie video summary, from the Reverend Comfort himself, of his "nightmare" inducing critique evolution and his evidentiary support of ID.
> at the end of the day, I have been placed
> at war with your likes, and that was YOUR choice.
>
> In other words, I declare war against you and your kind.
>
> I did not desire this war, but you thrust it upon us. It was your call.
>
> Having said that, I say to you (now more than ever) that I am singularly
> determined to see your agenda defeated, and it will be.
and
> The war is on. As Reagan said: We win, you lose.
>
> Understand that quite well, because in a true war (unlike Iraq), all means
> available to me will be used.
>
> You targeted the wrong guy, but I thank God that you did.
>
> Enjoy your brief stay in the spotlight.
My opinion of Guy has fallen even lower. Not only is he a superstitious crank, but like the Jihadists across the ocean, he believes he's entitled to violence for the affronts to his god, his view of culture, and his issues with his sexuality. This is a sick, sick, man folks.
"I hope someone kills you soon you piece of NIGGER shit. I certainly hope someday you piss off the wrong person and you get killed as a result, you ugly NIGGER, Thats RIght Big fat ugly NIGGER You were never gay to begin with you can never provide incontrovertible proof that you ever were which means you are a liar, a liar and a NIGGER. I hope that person kills you in the most painful manner imaginable."
Just like Guy Adams, the man who sent D.L. these remarks, Adam Kautz is also seriously deranged, taking threats to his sexuality and his superstition as violence necessitating affronts. Both men are equally sick.
I wholeheartedly agree that I made a mistake in my interview with Guy Adams. As I said in the second part, I should've asked for his source of information concerning the "new trend with homosexuals having sex with infants." I am sincerely sorry for not doing that.
When I found out that his source was a few people at the gay games in Chicago I realized that that was not sufficient evidence to support his claim, so all of you who are telling me this, I want you to know that I wholeheartedly agree and I offer my sincerest apologies for not making sure he had the evidence - in valid research form - to back up the comment. While it's encouraging that Stacy recognizes she caused both consternation and harm with her comments, I still have a problem with her apology.
At the same time, I think it is important to make sure everyone understands that Guy said it was a growing trend with a small group of homosexuals. Contrary to what many of you have said, he nor I said this was something the whole gay community was doing.
Whoop, there it is.
To me, her comments say that she still believes not only that there is a contingent of gay men committing baby-rape, but that said contingent is growing. She may believe it's only limited to Chicago, or a suburb of Chicago, or to a couple of beaten up boxes on the West Side of Chicago, but she still believes it. She does so not because of any evidence, for there is none, but because someone she likes told her the groundless claim was true.
I could be wrong. I freely admit that. I may be reading more into this than is really here. I may be assigning her motives not based on anything more tangible than a feeling. Given that the sum of her blog is that there's an Agenda by the Abominable to Annihilate America, I just don't credence this as a full apology. I don't think she really gets the "what" and the "how" of what she did that is wrong.
You don't give a forum for such an outlandish claim to go unchallenged. You don't give yet another forum for such rubbish to be presented again and not vociferously comment on the spuriousness of the charge when no real evidence is presented outside of "I heard it from a guy."
Most certainly, you don't apologize for everything else under the sun but the hate filled, blood libel you initially supported by saying "Well, he didn't mean everyone."
So we've finally heard the source of Guy Adams recent claims on the Stacy Harp blogaramma that there is an increase in gay men having sex with babies.
Wait! You mean you haven't heard about Mr. Adam's valiant struggle to tell the world the truth of what he discovered in Chicago? It's been extensively covered at some of the best sites.
To recap, Mr. Adams, who bills himself as an expert on the "Gay Agenda" -- which should give you pause right there, as anyone with an ounce of familiarity with a gays knows getting a room full of queers to agree on who should win Project: Runway is neigh impossible, let alone crafting a plan to conquer America -- stated during his recent interview on Stacy's internet radio program, that the latest fad to hit the Chicago gay community is sex with infants.
Note, he wasn't talking about that 20-something frat boy your 30-something friend Craig is dating, either. He meant real, live honest to goodness babies. And he didn't just say it was happening, but that it was increasingly happening, growing in popularity. Like iPods, I guess.
Due to popular demand, Stacy gave Guy another 15 minutes today to reveal his source regarding this ever increasing scourge on the land. In spite of myself, I clicked over and listened. Sometimes you just have to slow down and see the car wreck.
With baited breath I waited, expecting to hear either revelation or exasperation at the use of FBI statistics, or police reports or...
Guy Adams: "One of the ladies that we were with...her daughter is a lesbian...and she found information out {about the baby rapes} that way..."
Oh,
Guy Adams: "We talked to a number of homosexuals in the area and ex-homosexuals as well and there are plenty of ex homosexuals. But I think some of these people have taken it out of context..."
Dumber than a rutabaga in a bag of nail clippings....
It's a horrible thing to see a newborn that's been violated. I can't get the image of it out of my head, and it's been three years since I was Child Protective Social Worker and had to investigate such a thing. I was lucky too and only drew a "mild" case. Some infants got it far, far worse than mine.
When real people know about a baby being tortured through rape, most honest folk want to find out all the details they can, first hand and report them to the authorities. At the very least, they'll drive to the perps house, take a bat from the trunk and go all Buford Pusser on the perp. Sometimes they'd do both.
Now, if you only wanted to do some damage and paint a community as being degraded and debased, you'd think of the something abominable -- like baby rape -- and casually drop it into columns, public appearances and private conversations, and hope that, like the malevolent game of Post Office that it is, it would spread and mutate to the point where torches were lit and the monsters, the community in question, were run off the hill. If you were ever asked for your source? "I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy," and then you'd quickly change the subject to some other fiendish scenario from the dark pits of your twisted imagination.
Now, if you also wanted to sleep at night, you'd convince yourself that you told your lies "truth", or helped in the dissemination of such things, only for the "Common Good." You'd talk day and night about your "compassion," your "love" of your fellow Man and the depth of your "acceptance."
The thing of it is, the rest of us would still know you for what you really are.
Stephen Colbert's character ain't that much of an exaggeration. From his July 25th interview with William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights:
Colbert: [the] bible doesn't say on the front "fact." Doesn't need to.
Donohue: That's right, because they...people come up to me and they ask and I say it's true.
Colbert: ...yeah.
"...Although they have circulated widely on the Internet and were printed in some European newspapers, as well as the New York Times, the images have not been seen in most newspapers here.
There is nothing in the pictures taken before the execution that contains blood, or explicit violence, or nudity, the usual taboos of imagery in the United States. And yet something about them is so deeply disturbing that they have had little mainstream circulation.
It is, perhaps, the very blunt and painful confrontation with homophobia that they force upon any viewer who chooses to believe that these are, indeed, images of youth executed merely for being gay. Rarely is the hatred of homosexuals, which flourishes within many of the world's fundamentalist religions, seen so starkly.
If the Old Testament, a font of three of the world's major faiths, is the inerrant Word of God, then why should these images trouble you? For God, in Leviticus, says that the killing of homosexuals is justice and pleasing to him.
But if the images trouble the conscience nonetheless, then the viewer finds himself in exactly the position of every gay person who has wrestled with traditional morality and its often harsh absolutes. You find within yourself a moral consciousness that is wider than the wellspring of ancient religion. It is a dizzying sensation of liberation, and its power pulses through every line written by Walt Whitman.
But it is, for many, a terrifying thought, and so images are suppressed. And the wasted lives of two young men are ignored by all except those who, through the strange ether of the Internet, feel a powerful kinship with them..."
Does it really pay to argue with the superstitious about the reasonable? Well, as I'm paying for my own bandwith here, the immediate answer would be no...
Yet after running all over town for meetings, banging my head against the wall to get a story out on the page to be just right, or being concerned that the Mideast is about to dissolve into a cloud of atomically split particles, it does feel good to be doing just a little bit, a little marginal bit no doubt, to point out that someone just doesn't get what they are talking about.
...You are wrong. I most certainly do understand what I am discussing. It is you who refuses to see past your "tower of Babel" called "the scientific extrapolation of evidence that makes you believe in ape (or chimp, monkey)to man macroevolution."
...hus, we get to the point of my original post (yet, again!) and that point is that evolutionists refuse to face the fact that their views and beliefs are just as much philosophical and "religious" as adherents to Creation and/or ID.
It's right here that you know that despite your best efforts, they just don't understand: they don't understand science, they don't understand evolution, and they don't even understand the "Neo-Darwinian" ideas they rail so loudly against.
....the fact remains that because Darwinists refuse to admit that their philosophical naturalism beliefs come down to a "chance did it" conclusion; they consider their mocking of Creationists and IDeists for believing that "God did it" a legitimate argument against us. But your "chance did it" hypothesis is not only ridiculous, it's impossible. Given millions and billions of years, it's still impossible. Statistically speaking, you reach a point where such a belief is labeled by scientific measure to be an impossibility. Yet, Darwinists continue to extrapolate the evidence for microevolution and falsely claim that it demonstrates evidence for macroevolution. That's a philosophical position, not a scientific one.
Still nothing but proximity alert warnings that you about to bang your head into a brick wall called "IGNORANCE" (picture the Ricola guy saying that.) I'm a sci-fi writer, a thriller writer, a dramatist. I specialize in bending the truth over the course of 120 pages to tell the Truth that we run into daily. I don't presume to provide a rational argument in those pages. I do though know a reasoned argument when I see one, a supported thesis with evidentiary citations that back up, illustrate and validate the point. I know how to write one -- damn college term papers -- and I know when someone hasn't created one. Guess what's she's done?
You don't believe that God exists?
Prove it!
When all else fails, change the subject, right?
I know I'm just beating a dead horse, but as I've got the stick, I needed the break, and the dead horse didn't mind, here's what I responded with:
-------------
Christine, once again I find myself saying "No, you don't understand."
I've explained, rather simply, what science is. It's a methodology that for studying nature, proceeding forth from an assumption that no magic is involved in natural processes but just simply physical events. It is also referred to as "methodological naturalism." No ontological meaning is derived within the process itself.
I've explained that this isn't an assumption I came up with, or "Darwinists" came up with, but which Thales, who we historically attribute to be the "inventor" of the scientific method, proposed. It allows people, of whatever ilk, to conduct and investigation into events of the world and to discover answers that are generalizable.
People of various metaphysical beliefs have used this methodology with ever increasing success (as the tools and that methodology became more and more refined) for over 2500 years.
The scientific method is ultimately agnostic toward the existence of any supernatural entities -- people aren't, but the method involved here is. It's set up this way to keep arguments about which magic is right out of the process itself. Science can't measure magic, only what occurs naturally.
Focus in on that idea, because we're going to return to that in a moment.
You've argued that evolution and its processes as is commonly understood by hundreds of thousands of scientists across the globe is wrong. That there is little or no evidence for the well documented, researched, and verified processes involved, and that the mass of scientific literature is wrong.
You've not argued this on just religous grounds, but on scientific ones as well. You've made statements here that you believe the scientific method, used with great effect for centuries, isn't right. You've also argued, and sided with those who argue, that the role of a supernatural creator in the development of life can be easily shown through the scientific process.
I've asked you to provide this scientific evidence. You haven't done so. You've provided your beliefs and opinions. You've provided links to articles that contained factual errors or didn't speak to the point you proposed (because evolution textbooks have wrong information in them evolution itself is wrong.)
You state over and over again that I am talking past you. No, I'm not. I'm saying do what scientists for thousands of years have been doing: provide the evidence.
You won't. You shift the argument into a debate about the validity of philosophical naturalism -- which is an extrapolation from methodological naturalism that there really isn't a supernatural (which is something I subscribe to, but that is another debate -- and use that as a straw man to attack the premise of science.
Because you do this, time and time again, you show you don't understand science. You aren't arguing from science or using the tools of science. You are cloaking a religious idea -- Creation By God -- in the wordage of science and trying to sell it --Intelligent Design -- as such.
That's not science, Christine.
I'm not going to argue magic with you. I'm also not here in your com box going to let you get away unchallenged with a persecution complex stemming from your own hubris that the methodology of science is not something you have to follow.
If you want to stick to your religious view that everything we see around us was created by magic, fine. As you are arguing instead that that magic also formed scientifically speaking the world around us, you need to put your evidence up or shut up.
The errors remain yours.
-----
I predict more pleas of persecution and deception. Quite possibly too an entirely new top level post that outlines my sins, my moral turpitude (tangentially touching on my sexual orientation) and a warning regarding an eternal existence in a metaphysical BBQ.
But nothing scientific at all in support of her point.
I'm having a nice chat with Christine, a woman who doesn't understand science over at her blogger page, TalkWisdom.
Since I constantly try to kill two birds with one toothbrush by repurposing something I've written once to any other place I can, I'm posting it here, too. It's a quick bit about what all is involved in the method of Science, and why IDist and other similar sorts have to play by the same rules as everyone else when they make their claims. It's not exhaustive, but it'll meet my blogging obligations for today...
---------------------
Christine--
No, I'm not "talking past you." I'm not talking over you either. Or under you, or around you or any other possible permutation thereof. I'm talking to you directly:
You don't understand what you are discussing.
You think you do and you make a big show by linking around to various articles, but you don't really get it. I'm no expert, but I do understand science -- I understand it better than you. I get what it's about, why it works and why you're wrong.
I owe that understanding, at least in part, to my education at public high school, college, and graduate school (on two different occasions, two different degrees.) Public schooling is a great invention of the United States. Pitty we don't do more to support it, but then I digress.
It allowed him to postulate the first theory, that "the forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world" (same cite) weren't at the mercy of the capriciousness of the gods, but could be discerned first through observation and reason and then later through experimentation. He discovered science.
Science is a methodology that deals in physical processes, in analysis, in experimentation, in theory, in data, in short, in facts.
It's a justified process (to show to be true through proof), that anyone can participate in, provided you show your work. It's rules are pretty simple. It's results are pretty dramatic (he wrote at his laptop, resting on his sofa, beamed over a wireless network, to a world wide Internet.)
Christine, as long as you say that a god, who we can't see, can't feel, can't hear, can't take pictures of, can't give a back massages too, intervenes in the world in some way that we can't see, feel, hear, or touch, then great. I got no beef with you. I'll just smile and go about my business feeding pigeons on my way to the mall.
As soon as you state that the same described above physically intervened at the molecular level, the genetic level, or species level to create the creatures before us because it wouldn't work any other way, then I gotta stop you there and say:
Prove it.
You are arguing that you can do so. That, within the system set forth by Thales and modified by countless thinkers over the centuries, you can show this god not just guiding things in some unseen manner but actually intervening to make changes, then the onus is on you to provide the proof.
Arguing that because science textbooks give bad examples about evolution means that your view is correct is not proof. It's a fact about the nature of the textbook, not about the nature of your argument.
Throwing out cosmological questions about the nature of the universe is not a support for your premise that there is no such thing as macroevolution.
Linking to an online debate you had two years ago is not evidence in support of your ongoing thesis that Evolutionary Theory can't explain the evolution of life.
The burden is on you, and those you support, and those that the young man mentioned in your "dictatorship" article support, to show, scientifically, how what we know to be true by multiple, independent, converging lines of evidence is false.
You haven't done that. You haven't even begun to do that.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here that you just don't understand science, its history, its terms or its process. Otherwise, I'd have to conclude that you are being deliberately deceptive, obtuse or stark raving mad.
*Yes, there are security concerns. If this breaks out into a wider war it has a direct impact on the US and Western Civilization. We'll have to get massively involved. Just don't forget that what this boils down to an argument over superstition.
It came up in conversation over at Perspectives in Motion that my good buddy Reverend DL Foster made no money off the backs of "ex-gays" for 2005.
Great.
But as I thought about it, I wondered something else. So I've asked the good Reverend -- under Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter B, section 6104 D of the Federal Tax code, -- for his church's annual return, applications for the recognition of exemptions, and 527(j) reports regarding expenditures and contributions . I'd like to see how much his Ministry has made off the backs of ex-gays.
Call me nosy, but I'd just like to know the economics of these things. I have an inquiring mind, after all.
Now as I understand the tax law, Rev. Foster has 30 days to comply with my request, by either sending those returns to me or by posting them to the internet for anyone to see.
Update #3: Dani responded in her comments section with welcomes and thanks for my noticing her site, and agreed this post does explain a lot about her.
As she has a general "ask me a question" notice on her web page, I took the opportunity to post the following comment/question to her:
Dani, I noticed that in your "Everything Bad..." post that you blame the schools, the government, your parents, the men in your life, Humanists, liberals, even, I gather, the church, for all that went bad in life. Never, though, yourself.
Your mother, who worked three jobs for your benefit, at the very least taught self sacrifice and responsibility to family to you. (I'm sure she taught more.)
Your schools, and I'm assuming Denver area but correct me if I'm wrong, with their tutors, gifted programs, college prep, and guidance counseling, provided not just lessons but the resources to make hard work, diligence, planning for the future pay off.
Your church, where you attend services, Bible Study, and youth group, you dismiss as failing you all the while you were exposed to its teachings on compassion, uniqueness, and love.
So after I reading "Everything...", your posts here on this blog, and even your comments on other's sites, it strikes me that you've painted yourself first as the aggrieved and now as the avenged you never once remarked how you were the one, truly, at fault.
And that, my dear, does explain a lot.I'll report back later her response.
For thousands of years, prophets have predicted the end of the world. Today, various religious groups, using the latest technology, are trying to hasten it.
Their endgame is to speed the promised arrival of a messiah.
For some Christians this means laying the groundwork for Armageddon.
With that goal in mind, mega-church pastors recently met in Inglewood to polish strategies for using global communications and aircraft to transport missionaries to fulfill the Great Commission: to make every person on Earth aware of Jesus' message. Doing so, they believe, will bring about the end, perhaps within two decades.It's why I find so much hypocrisy in many of these groups frequent slinging of the culture of death epithet at we puny materialists.
If Darwinism is accepted as true, we have no choice but to accept that the Christian understanding of created and fallen man is just a pious fable, a myth intended to assign personal agency to a universe that has none. And if the nature of man is a fable, so must be the Incarnation.
Coulter reveals that the so-called "gaps" in the theory of evolution are all there is -Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?
Here’s the problem: ‘Victoria Coyne, 7, prepares for her first Holy Communion, there has been a “major snag“: As a child sufferting from both celiac disease and diabetes, she can neither eat the wheat wafer that represents the body of Christ nor drink the wine that signifies his blood.” .... The matter used for the sacrament must have the true s
