Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 6:09 AM
22 online now:
PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (2 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,218 Year: 9,254/19,786 Month: 1,676/2,119 Week: 436/576 Day: 31/80 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
36NextFF
Author Topic:   The war of atheism
Modulous
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1 of 526 (367984)
12-06-2006 2:22 PM


Forget Evolution versus Creationism. The current hot war is between evolutionists who argue vociferously exactly how to beat the growing sentiments of anti-science and the threat to the enlightenment that is fundamentalism (as one participant commented: 'Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?'1). To be fair, the theistic evolutionists are involved - but they are essentially what/who the war is over, not the participants.

So, what is the war about? As I said-theistic evolutionists. Consider the recent debate between and Dawkins and Collins. In general there are three positions on the debate, hopefully they will help elucidate what is going on here. The debate, incidentally, is multi layered.


  1. Dogma is irrational belief in the way the world works. Relgious dogma is somehow free from criticism but we can criticize Marxist dogma, or Fascist dogma. When dogma leads to policy decisions we tend to get problems. Example: Stem cell research should not be hampered by the evidence free dogmatic belief that human zygotes of 100 cells have a soul that makes them 'sacred'. They believe that appeasement in the debate is dangerous. We should not be siding with one group of deluded individuals simply because we have a common enemy (fundamentalism). They refer to appeasers as 'Neville Chamberlain evolutionists'
    Proponents: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Larry Moran2

  2. Theistic Evolutionists don't let their religion get in the way of their science and so should be tolerated. They think that alienating the religious from science is only going to fuel fundamentalism. Some have ironically embraced the idea of Neville Chamberlains. They believe that (1)s are 'atheistic evangelicals' and are as fundamentally dangerous as the dangerous fundamentalists.
    Proponents: Ed Brayton, John Lynch, and Pay Hayes

  3. Whilst the (1)s have a good point - they are making tactical errors. The (2)s also have a good point, but they are being too passive. We should try putting science to religious people in terms of their culture and beliefs. We can't rid the world of religion in one fell swoop, but we might be able to replace the awe and wonder of religion with that of the universe.
    Proponents3: Neil deGrasse Tyson, Joan Roughgarden

So. They are the basics of the positions. Here follows the most prudent quotes I could find, one from each position, with links.

Moran writes:

Richard Dawkins writes about the "Neville Chamberlain 'appeasement' school" of evolutionists. These are scientists who are willing to compromise science in order to form an alliance with some religious groups who oppose Christian fundamentalism. Do you believe in miracles? That's okay, it's part of science. Do you believe that God guides evolution in order to produce beings who worship him? That's fine too; it's all part of the Neville Chamberlain version of intelligent design. Souls, moral law, life after death, a fine-tuned universe, angels, the efficacy of prayer, transubstantiation ... all these things are part of the new age science according to the appeasement school. There's no conflict with real science. We mustn't question these things for fear of alienating our potential allies in the fight against the IDiots. Welcome to the big tent.

...

Is the appeasement strategy working? Of course not, but the most amazing thing is happening. The Neville Chamberlain School thinks it is winning in spite of the fact that leading politicians oppose evolution; most schools don't teach evolution; and the general public doesn't accept evolution. Talk about delusion. The appeasers think we should continue down the same path that led us to this situation. They think we should continue to compromise science in order to accommodate the religious moderates.

You can see more Here, also PZ Myers writes similarly here

Ed Brayton writes:

All it does is feed into the perception that everyone on our side is out to punish, censor or destroy the careers of those who disagree with us. And I'm trying to make clear that that is not the case, that the only people who advocate such tactics are, in fact, people fighting an entirely different battle than the one we're fighting, and with tactics that we disapprove of. And I want to make the distinction clear between the two groups.

There is no "movement" being divided here, there are two entirely different groups fighting two entirely different battles. Our interests may be temporarily and theoretically in line at times, but the fact is that your fight is significantly undermining our fight by reinforcing their worst stereotypes (and confusing you with us), by alienating an enormous base that would otherwise support us, and by declaring our most valuable spokesman to be enemies of the cause.

Well Ken Miller may be an enemy to your cause, but not to our cause. And that is exactly my point: we aren't fighting for the same goals. And pointing that out does not divide a movement, it recognizes two distinct movements with two distinct goals. And I frankly want to distance myself from your goals as much as possible.

Here, also see here.

Tyson writes:

You are a professor of the public understanding of science, not professor of delivering truth to the public. And these are two different exercises. One of them is you put the truth out there, and like you said, they either buy your book or they don't. Well that's not being an educator, that's just putting it out there. Being an educator is not only getting the truth right, but, there has got to be an act of persuasion in there as well.

Persuasion isn't always: Here's the facts, you're either an idiot or you're not. It's here are the facts and here is a sensitivity to your state of mind. And it's the facts plus the sensitivity when convolved together, that creates impact. And I worry that your methods and how articulately barbed you can be ends up simply being ineffective when you have much more power of influence than is currently being reflected in your output.

here

So there you go. How do we deal with the situation? What is the best way? Do we attack dogmatic religious beliefs as strongly as we attack other dogmatic beliefs? Do we attack only fundamentalist religious beliefs, and give a break to people like theistic evolutionists? Do we try and convince the religious public that science can be wonderful and is not to be feared?

Or...is everybody actually agreeing with each other but failing to understand the other person's position?

This might be the first time I have made a thread that I recommended go in Forum Social Issues and Creation/Evolution, but another 'social...issues' forum might be appropriate too.



1 Melvin J. Konner, Ph.D. - Konner was very much against this attitude and was deriding the attitude of many of the scientists in the debate.

2 Regulars at this forum will know Moran for his articles on Talk Origins. Notably: Evolution is a fact and a theory.

3 These are gray area people, so they might sometimes be(1)s and sometimes (2)s, so it isn't really a concrete position.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 12-07-2006 6:52 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 4 by Sour, posted 12-07-2006 10:20 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 14 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-30-2006 3:47 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 20 by SammyJean, posted 05-14-2009 1:32 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 22 by EZscience, posted 05-15-2009 2:48 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-06-2009 8:38 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1911
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 526 (368022)
12-06-2006 3:52 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3199 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 526 (368131)
12-07-2006 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
12-06-2006 2:22 PM


re:question from within evo thougt
Waking up this morning I had a calm feeling of a major resolution of the tension that animates our internet discussion, at least for me, more so(means (LESS)if I was to subjectively somehow quantify it) than my walkig and waken life.

It is generally known that molecular biology has for decades been making "in-roads" THROUGH the turf of traditional organismic biologists but I have never seen any form the conclusion that the older/traditional/classic uses of the differences of the notions of "FORM" and "MATTER" have become 'inverted' in the progress of biology. This seems to come about because genes as used are not matter but so tightly associated with it that language has had to bear the strain of the atomic trend in physics and science generally as sociologically Russia fell.

And so if there really is a difference of opinion about anti-science/evolution statements being debated among any kind of form or matter biologists (let's say, "physiologists" for short) then I am tending feel comfortable, at least initially, in the presumption that this is due to technology covering for matterialism with ACTUAL comphrehension of biological terms for formations being matter for materialism either implict or induced.

The specific issue of stem cell research is directly at the form/matter divide.

Theistic evolutionists some how are not phased by statistical confidence of shapes of material to come in ongoing research.

But if "awe and wonder" replace the common sense difference of matter and form there is no doubt I would only continue to "wonder" if for instance the word "meristic" really IS NOT a matter of form but a form of matter and be in "awe" about how different EvC is from my actual life.

Edited by Brad McFall, : 2letters


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2006 2:22 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Sour
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 63
From: I don't know but when I find out there will be trouble. (Portsmouth UK)
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 4 of 526 (368173)
12-07-2006 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
12-06-2006 2:22 PM


Depends on the situation
Modulous writes:

To be fair, the theistic evolutionists are involved - but they are essentially what/who the war is over, not the participants.

Is this about how we should treat theistic evolutionists, or how we should treat the believing public?

Ed Brayton is right, there are at least two different battles being fought. Moran is engaged in the athiest vs theist debate - is there a supernatural intelligence at all.

Your Larry Moran quote is about how theistic evos treat the public and how it is damaging to the bigger argument.

Tyson is interested in the big debate, but thinks the methods of the proponents are sometimes counter productive.

It's a debate about the debate.

Can you correct any mistakes in this interpretation please?

Modulous writes:

How do we deal with the situation? What is the best way?

It all depends what argument you are involved in. There isn't one correct way to approach the problem pragmatically.

Richard Dawkins writes:

Why bother to express truths, if they are truths , why bother to make up a parable, to make a tenuous allegory when you can just tell people the truth. The truth is perfectly simple. Why bother going back to the bible and seeking out some sort of analogy. Why not just natural selection, teach evolution, the way it is. It's perfectly simple.

There are other people who feel that we should be conciliatory, I think that Michael Shermer called it making nice. I think that there is something to be said for that and I am genuinely uncertain what I feel about that because I can see the political benefits of winning that battle (evo vs creo in schools), and I do see it as a battle rather than a war, I do see it as a skirmish. I'm actually more interested in the deep truths in the universe. Is there actually a supernatural intelligence in the universe, and thats the war that I'm really interested in.

Cooperation with theistic evolutionists is political and limited to the issue of evolution/creation. RD thinks the theists are not helping because truth should be enough. He will compromise for the evo/creo debate, but that is not what he is primarily engaged in, apparently.

Tyson writes:

85% of the national academy reject a personal god, and then they compare it to 90% of the public [accepting a personal god]. You know that's NOT the story, they missed the story. What the article should have said is 'How come this number isn't zero?'. Thats the story. My esteemed colleague Professor Krauss says all we have to do is make a scientifically literate public. When you do, how can they do better than the scientists themselves, thats kind of unrealistic i think. So theres something else going on that nobody seems to talk about. As you become more scientific the religiousity drops off, but it asymptotes not to zero. So they should be the subject of everybodies investigation, not the public. It's not 85% reject, its 15% of the most brilliant minds that the nation has, accept, and thats something that we can't just sweep under the rug, otherwise we are being disingenous to our efforts here.

Tyson in interested in the same argument, but with real people. I think that is the extent of the difference with regard to that debate. Giving breaks to theists is limited to particular areas.

Scott Atran writes:

Liberty and freedom are reccurently won and lost in alternating cycles of war and violence and there is no evidence whatsoever that that is changing one iota. I don't see scientists, although there maybe in a ideal world the possiblity of a scientific moral ethics, I certainly don't see in this audience the slightest indication that people here are emotionally or intellectually equipped to deal with the facts of changing human knowledge in the context of unchaning human needs that haven't changed much since the pleistocene and i don't see theres any evidence that science is being used to try to understand the people you are trying to convince to join you.

Atran is dealing with serious real world problems caused by fundamentalism, not just one on one debate or argument for it's own sake. Completely different question, and he certainly favours using whatever language and methods help to reduce the damage caused by fundamentalism. He is engaged in a different debate to RD.

Modulous writes:

Do we attack dogmatic religious beliefs as strongly as we attack other dogmatic beliefs?

In principle yes, but not if it means you are going to get shot. I think this is a serious point, and it has to affect the method you use. Science lacks the techniques to deal with these situations because it has no experience of it.

Modulous writes:

Do we attack only fundamentalist religious beliefs, and give a break to people like theistic evolutionists?

It depends on the situation. Politically the theistic evolutionists can be used for the skirmishes when their aim coincides, but that doesn't mean their theism need be protected outside the public area of that particular aim.

Modulous writes:

Do we try and convince the religious public that science can be wonderful and is not to be feared?

Yes yes yes. In the way Tyson did in his final Salk lecture. It was awesome, inspiring, and uplifting, but it's not going to work everywhere. Maybe when we know why 20% of people don't respond to transcranial magnetic stimulation we'll have a better method.

I think it is possible to pick your aim and compromise the nature of your attack without compromising your position.

Modulous writes:

Or...is everybody actually agreeing with each other but failing to understand the other person's position?

They are either having different arguements, or arguing towards different target audiences.

--
Apologies for dictation errors, all my quotes are from the SALK lectures. I'm aware my point isn't very well made, I want to spend more time on this but I have to go out. I hope it makes some sense. Spelling corrections later...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2006 2:22 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2006 12:47 PM Sour has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 5 of 526 (368220)
12-07-2006 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Sour
12-07-2006 10:20 AM


Re: Depends on the situation
Can you correct any mistakes in this interpretation please?

I don't think there are two battles being fought per se. I think there are two (and a bit) battles, there is significant gray area, and they are part of the same war.

The two sides have different objectives. One side thinks the other are being short sighted in choosing their objectives.

Cooperation with theistic evolutionists is political and limited to the issue of evolution/creation. RD thinks the theists are not helping because truth should be enough. He will compromise for the evo/creo debate, but that is not what he is primarily engaged in, apparently.

The quote was in response to Roughgarden's ideas (amongst others) on discussing biology using metaphors adapted from religious iconography. He sees himself engaged in a larger battle than evo vs creo. That the evo/creo debate is a symptom of a much larger problem: dogma.

I agree with Tyson's point about trying to help people learn, not just tell them what is true and leave it at that.

It depends on the situation. Politically the theistic evolutionists can be used for the skirmishes when their aim coincides, but that doesn't mean their theism need be protected outside the public area of that particular aim.

Though the argument remains that we are being inconsistent as it is convenient.

Yes yes yes. In the way Tyson did in his final Salk lecture. It was awesome, inspiring, and uplifting, but it's not going to work everywhere. Maybe when we know why 20% of people don't respond to transcranial magnetic stimulation we'll have a better method.

I think it is possible to pick your aim and compromise the nature of your attack without compromising your position.

Agreed. I don't know if it is going to 100% successful - but I think it has the best chances of catapulting us froward this century.

Tyson has inspired me to try and change the way I handle things here, and some feedback from creationists here has confirmed it. It'll be difficult to do it right, but the rewards shall be wonderful!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Sour, posted 12-07-2006 10:20 AM Sour has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Sour, posted 12-07-2006 4:47 PM Modulous has responded

  
Sour
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 63
From: I don't know but when I find out there will be trouble. (Portsmouth UK)
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 6 of 526 (368261)
12-07-2006 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
12-07-2006 12:47 PM


Re: Depends on the situation
The quote was in response to Roughgarden's ideas (amongst others) on discussing biology using metaphors adapted from religious iconography. He sees himself engaged in a larger battle than evo vs creo. That the evo/creo debate is a symptom of a much larger problem: dogma.

So if Roughgarden and Tyson are in the same group, they have different approaches. Tyson use the majesty of science to appeal to the religious sense of mystery, and Roughgarden uses allegory to appeal to religious dogmatic tendencies?

Though the argument remains that we are being inconsistent as it is convenient.

Yes, but in a political arena. Is that SO bad?

Tyson has inspired me to try and change the way I handle things here, and some feedback from creationists here has confirmed it.

In what way? Appealing to religious with the majesty of science? Tyson wasn't addressing a specific religious claim was he? I don't see how to make that appeal without just placing it out there. How you can respond to a religious claim with this technique?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2006 12:47 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2006 5:37 PM Sour has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Brad McFall, posted 12-18-2006 5:22 PM Sour has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 7 of 526 (368269)
12-07-2006 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Sour
12-07-2006 4:47 PM


Re: Depends on the situation
So if Roughgarden and Tyson are in the same group, they have different approaches. Tyson use the majesty of science to appeal to the religious sense of mystery, and Roughgarden uses allegory to appeal to religious dogmatic tendencies?

Indeed - I grouped them together not because they necessarily agree with one another but because they agree that the other two groups are not looking at the issue right. Their position is basically, 'If we want to increase scientific understanding we can't just sit passively back, we can't aggresively point out the problems with religion...we have to take science to the people and present it in a way that they will be receptive to'.

Yes, but in a political arena. Is that SO bad?

It is - if the political stance you are trying to take is rationalism. The other side can simply dismiss you as being irrational because you are saying/doing inconsistent things.

In what way? Appealing to religious with the majesty of science? Tyson wasn't addressing a specific religious claim was he? I don't see how to make that appeal without just placing it out there. How you can respond to a religious claim with this technique?

The point is to not necessarily respond to a religious claim at all. It is to try and get science doing the same things that religion does now. Not only providing a sense of awe and wonder but also a social structure, sense of community etc etc.

You saw Tyson, I assume? His passion for the universe is infective. We can't drone on about expanding spacetime. We need to preach it, we need to show people how wonderful the scientific conclusions really are. Sounds like indoctrination, I suppose, but all education is -- in a way.

Another talker, I think it was Ann Druyan mentioned that we have all this wonderful CGI stuff, but we use it to blow up buildings, planes and alien space ships. Wouldn't a cosmological full CGI experience be wonderful?

It's a lot of work, it might not be possible - but it's a wonderful dream.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Sour, posted 12-07-2006 4:47 PM Sour has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3199 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 8 of 526 (370700)
12-18-2006 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Sour
12-07-2006 4:47 PM


Re: pending a elliptic back to EvC
I just cracked Roughgarden's recent book
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Christian-Faith-Reflections-Evolutionary/dp/1597260983
quote:
Roughgarden, a Stanford biology professor and author of Evolution's Rainbow, is impatient with the current tone of creation/evolution debates, but takes them seriously as an expression of a "pent-up urge for talking about God" in American public life. Attentive to "the spiritual yearning of people that compels them to overlook the evidence" if evolution is portrayed as an enemy of faith, Roughgarden urges science educators to show "more sympathy and willingness to accommodate people of faith, to offer space for seeing a Christian vision of the world within evolutionary biology."


just to see if her "universe" was worth a more detailed read.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have already commented on her here:
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=577&m=86#86 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=577&m=86#86">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=577&m=86#86
No, I did not find anything all that great because she said that "random mutation" has not been gainsaid AND that biology post-Synthesis went-on, to explain the source of variation, genetically.

If these two observations are part of the case for a larger than an evc debate I will have to disagree.

I think that nanotech and DNA computation may move to a better analytic control of mutation types and secondly that by ONLY conceptualizing variation extremes as distributed genetically misses an insight on form, I think herpetology already provided me and should have her, that, that FIRST finding the diveristy of the variation phenotypically provided is larger than historically explaining the sythensis regardless of the issues that Kimura brought up etc. So, from an enlarged discussion of these two points I do not see how any religious relations that Roughgarden will provide have any signs worth heeding as to expanding beyond EvC!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Sour, posted 12-07-2006 4:47 PM Sour has not yet responded

    
Origen
Member (Idle past 4458 days)
Posts: 52
Joined: 12-29-2006


Message 9 of 526 (372879)
12-29-2006 10:48 PM


Theistic evolution is a compromise of position. Its a cop-out philosophy because it mixes oil and milk and then serves it to drink. The problem then is that people become sick because of the admixure they drank and become atheists or occultist. Theistic evolutionists do not believe the Bible is Holy and thus deny the logical law of identity by contradicting what the Bible says God says. The Bible does not teach evolution (Gen.1:1) and is a Book of Creation. God is the Infinite spirit of life that created everything we see in the natural order of things.

Evolution teaches natural selection by means of accidental random chance.

The Bible teaches God created through His own understand. He literally spoke it and it happened. Jesus calmed the storm by the same word and it happened! God also solves the singularity problem that evolutionists have been troubled by since the beginning.

Theistic evolution just tries to combine the two; but in the compromising game, evolution always wins.


Everything was nothing before there was something.
Everything is something even if its nothing at all.
For nothingness came from Something, and that
Something has always been there.
Without an Infinite Designer, nothing,
could not have ever been.
For even Nothing is Something;
And from Something...came everything.
~ Jason Fessenden
Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2006 2:27 AM Origen has responded
 Message 16 by jar, posted 12-30-2006 11:37 AM Origen has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 10 of 526 (372917)
12-30-2006 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Origen
12-29-2006 10:48 PM


theistic evolutionists become occultists?
I understand your position on theistic evolutionists being a cop-out philosophy. However, I'm not sure how (other than through the usage of metaphor) you manage to make the leap:

Theistic evolutionists -> Atheists/occultists

Do you have any actual reasoning or evidence with regard to how many theistic evolutionists become occultists or atheists? You also say:

Theistic evolutionists do not believe the Bible is Holy and thus deny the logical law of identity by contradicting what the Bible says God says

Which seems to equivocating the terms 'literal' with 'Holy'. I'm not entirely sure there are any grounds for this. I do not see where the law of identity comes into this. The Bible ≠ God. Therefore the law of identity is irrelevant.

Evolution teaches natural selection by means of accidental random chance.

As always we have to be careful with teleological language. The term accidental can sometimes bring to mind that there was an intentional outcome, which was not fully realized. Also, evolution does not teach natural selection by means of chance. It teaches that chance variations are acted upon by natural selection - a significant difference.

Theistic evolution just tries to combine the two; but in the compromising game, evolution always wins.

So...other than a criticism of one of the three groups in the OP - do you have any comment on the topic at hand:

quote:
So there you go. How do we deal with the situation? What is the best way? Do we attack dogmatic religious beliefs as strongly as we attack other dogmatic beliefs? Do we attack only fundamentalist religious beliefs, and give a break to people like theistic evolutionists? Do we try and convince the religious public that science can be wonderful and is not to be feared?

Or...is everybody actually agreeing with each other but failing to understand the other person's position?


In the context of atheism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Origen, posted 12-29-2006 10:48 PM Origen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Origen, posted 12-30-2006 3:19 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 12 by Origen, posted 12-30-2006 3:19 AM Modulous has responded

  
Origen
Member (Idle past 4458 days)
Posts: 52
Joined: 12-29-2006


Message 11 of 526 (372924)
12-30-2006 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous
12-30-2006 2:27 AM


Duplicate - Content deleted
Duplicate message - Content deleted. - Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2006 2:27 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Origen
Member (Idle past 4458 days)
Posts: 52
Joined: 12-29-2006


Message 12 of 526 (372925)
12-30-2006 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous
12-30-2006 2:27 AM


Re: theistic evolutionists become occultists?
Sometimes we understand things through experience better than what we can cite on the sewer of the Internet. I have seen where the theistic evolution philosophy leads to in the lives of people I've known for quite sometime. I've seen good people turn into hard hearted occultist because of these OEC/theistic evolutionists who compromise positions with the Devil. Now understand that there is a Devil. I come from a dark background of spiritual Satanism and now I'm an orthodox Christian. I've seen enought evidence for both to know that God and Satan are true reality and the Bible does not give a false testimony of this. Also, I was forced by a friend (or, so-called friend) to trace the entire history of evil--and I did. For two years I researched and researched and experienced a terrible evil at the hand of a once closest friend. I traced modern communism to the Jewism Bolsheviks (who are atheists),I traced the history of the Edomite heresies and what views went into the Nazi ideology. I saw a great deal of evolution theory in each one. But these baby steps were not good enough. I cannot blame the evil I seen and heard on any single philosophy. I seen Wicca, gnosticism (both Dan Brown and the Jesus Seminar versions of modern approaches), I studied atheistic Satanism and true Witchcraft. Yet none of these I could blame for my friend's evil. All these views had the same fingerprint, a stigma of the mind, but, I needed a singularity that I could study for refutation. This evil changed so much and hid itself from my minds-eye so I could not dismantle the deception. It pretended to be a Jew, a Christian, a Deist, and never stuck to any one view. Is it a big deal? Yes! This evil is becoming extremely popular and I have enough knowledge of it to testify that people have died both physically and spiritually because of the propagandic truths that make the lies believible.

This evil spirit attack me personally through my friend and the power of assumption seemed good enough to believe, so my friend was decieved into believing. I searched my own soul deep down to see where I went wrong with him and what I can do to set the record straight.

This all started out has a Seventh Day Adventist discussion on the soul and the Sabbath day, and my friend became evil when I started attending the church next to my house that kept Sunday.

His personal attacks were deeply subtle, and his atheistic slant also subtle.

The "b" in Subtle is so silent; you can't hear it but you know it's there--you must pay attention!!

Eventually I knew my friend was truly demon possessed and the subtle speech was the mark of Gen.3:1 and the story of the fall. This subtle language is not the polite form, it is rude in a polite way, and never angers, even though you can strongly sense the incrdible level of hate behind the words.

Many other things happened that are beyond scientific explanation. An angel spoke through me as he tried to reach my friend and refuted the Devil who had possessed him. My friend's intelligence droped right off the map and began to pride himself of his stupidity. He pretended not to know anything or forgot old answers to skepticism I answered for him before. Now this guy was a life long SDA who held a respectable position in the church. He got into the occult through the top scholars of the SDA cult (like David Koresh did!). Propaganda was the tool that justified the means and pseudotheology led him straight to hell and I had no one to help me revert him back to himself again. The National Sunday Law hoax is a form of Freemasonry as it is an occultic lie infiltrated by darkest men of evil.

I have seen first hand the damage that mixing oil milk can do when served to drink. The person get violently ill and their mind is literally taken over what seems like a germ or a strange virus. They change into something unlikable and begin to hate everything. I saw the fingerprint of Satan in his subtle speech and learn how to identify it in other people and know for certain that the mark of evil thought leads to the stigma of 666. I saw Subtle.

I also seen the beauty of God through my persecution, but the event is something kept between me and God. I will tell you honestly that I saw inside my own soul and the One living in there. I felt joy and also fear. I tremble thinking about the reality of everything and want to find ways to express the truth I learned to others. Thats the real problem for me. Expression is hard to do when everything you understand is alien to this world.

Theistic evolution is a heresy and not supported by the testimony of God's word to man, which can be trusted!

My Pastor at the Sunday keeping church knew that I was going through something beyond worldly comprehension. I am thankful God lead me to the truth and a church that knows about these things.

My former best friend is a witch now and has converted many children from his own family and other families, and his siblings, to hard core evil witchcraft and all the lessons on the worst evil I have ever seen. This evil is equal to that of Naziism, exept, this new form of evil is respected by so-called respected people and Naziism is a word people ran far away from.

I call him Dar-Vader because are last exchange of words was similar to the lastest Star-Wars movie (Revenge of the Sith) combined with the Narnia reality! It was a horror movie to me, and one that was not fiction, but a look into the reality of modern Satanism.

Satan is a real living being. Satan can take over the mind of someone who treasures a sin that is not confessed. One sin leads to another, and greed leeds to lust and murder and the envy of others. All these sins lead to death and all need to be confessed.

Heresy is a falsehood. Now the origin of falsehoods go back to Satan's personal agenda to destroy God's creation and call it his own work. Evolution is a philosophy from Satan. This philosophy was first spread through demon possessed people who suffered with the sin of pride and greed and lusted for the world. A lie is the first deception Satan used in the garden and it had alot to do with being your own god and controlling your own life without God.

Think what you want of this testimony, but understand that the Bible is the only souce if information that can help you understand the good and evil angelic life in the unseen dimensions of space-time that is not visible to the degenerated human eye. Jesus Christ is the true Messiah! Through Him you can overcome the Devil's schemes and life eternally with God. You can trust the Bible! It is all we humans have against the dark forces of evil (besides God and His holy angels who look after us).


Everything was nothing before there was something.
Everything is something even if its nothing at all.
For nothingness came from Something, and that
Something has always been there.
Without an Infinite Designer, nothing,
could not have ever been.
For even Nothing is Something;
And from Something...came everything.
~ Jason Fessenden
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2006 2:27 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Thugpreacha, posted 12-30-2006 3:40 AM Origen has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2006 6:10 AM Origen has not yet responded

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12420
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 13 of 526 (372932)
12-30-2006 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Origen
12-30-2006 3:19 AM


Re: theistic evolutionists become occultists?
Thanks for sharing your testimony...if a bit long, it was honest and was appreciated by me, for one. I too have seen the evidence of the supernatural.

It is one thing for us to have such fervent beliefs and to realize that what we have experienced is important, in our opinion, to others as well as ourselves.

It is another thing to realize that the world is going to continue how it is and that what must happen is happening.

It does us no good to attack science or to try and rant at the direction of education and rationality.

Lets get back to Modulous's topic.

Modulous writes:

The current hot war is between evolutionists who argue vociferously exactly how to beat the growing sentiments of anti-science and the threat to the enlightenment that is fundamentalism (as one participant commented: 'Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?'1). To be fair, the theistic evolutionists are involved - but they are essentially what/who the war is over, not the participants.

Perhaps the question: IS Religious Fundamentalism a threat to enlightened thinking?

For those of us who have seen the unprovable yet real dynamics of the spiritual realm, we can only agree that one mads madness is another mans enlightenment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Origen, posted 12-30-2006 3:19 AM Origen has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12420
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 14 of 526 (372933)
12-30-2006 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
12-06-2006 2:22 PM


Let each position have its place and its space
Modulous writes:

Do we attack dogmatic religious beliefs as strongly as we attack other dogmatic beliefs?

Phat writes:

a freedom of speech issue. We should only attack beliefs that tread on the toes of other disciplines and fields of study. As an example, I believe that fundamental religious beliefs (even if I believe them true) have no place in politics.

Do we attack only fundamentalist religious beliefs, and give a break to people like theistic evolutionists? Do we try and convince the religious public that science can be wonderful and is not to be feared?
Yes. Science is not something to be feared. Even if science was a tool of a fundamentalists proverbial devil, the scenario would be arguably meant to happen anyway and cannot be prevented.

Don't chain our kids up and prevent them from becoming enlightened and progressive thinkers. Surely even a fundamentalist would agree that God can overcome the influences of the culture, should it be necessary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2006 2:22 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 15 of 526 (372943)
12-30-2006 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Origen
12-30-2006 3:19 AM


Re: theistic evolutionists become occultists?
Your anecdotal evidence sounds like an exception rather than a rule. Most of my social circle are either atheistic or somewhat pagan and dogma is anathaema to all of them...so evil akin to the dogmatic Nazism is shunned absolutely. Also fascism, communism and Marxism. I have met a couple of modern satanists and followers of set, but my own social network takes the micky out of most of them anyway.

So unfortunately I think that your testimony is either exaggerated or exceptional. Certainly not a general tendency. My entire family are theistic evolutionists and they are all of CofE and have remained so for all of their lives. As have their friends. Indeed there are many many theistic evolutionists in the world, and proportionally few evil nazi-kin occultists.

That aside, what about the OP?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Origen, posted 12-30-2006 3:19 AM Origen has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
36NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019