What do I have that the author knows what he’s talking about and can discern the difference between believer and non-believer?
As I said, in my experience atheists cannot discern believers from non-believers. It’s not always easy for believers but we have a much better chance. Inconvenient or upsetting play no role.The Confederates were Christians. Like it or not, as another Christian, you are in absolutely no position or have any right or judgement to say that they were Christians or not.
You do not get to ignore facts of history just because you find them inconvenient or upsetting.
As I said, inky experience atheists cannot discern believers from non-believers. It’s not always easy for believers but we have a much better chances. Inconvenient or upsetting play no role.
I don't think Darwin would be considered "woke".
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Sure I can. The bible doesn’t support slavery. It teaches us to love others as you love yourself. Since we don’t make ourself into slaves, we cannot justify doing that to others.
As to your question, no.Incorrect.
But I’ll ask you a question the last atheist refused to answer.
Can a man be good father and rape his daughter?
Sure I can. The bible doesn’t support slavery. It teaches us to love others as you love yourself. Since we don’t make ourself into slaves, we cannot justify doing that to others.
What you call "evidence" is probably not evidence. And yes, atheists do often display the ability to know the difference. That is often why they are atheists in the first place. Quite a few atheists became atheists until they studied the Bible properly.I am. All we have here are words. You cannot see me act or anything choices I make. And the evidence I have would be invisible to an atheist. Atheists do not demonstrate an ability to know the difference. An article says it, it must be so is a case in point.
LOL. At one stage Darwin was taking an Arts degree at Cambridge and was being pushed by his father into becoming a country parson. His views on God seemed to vary but he tended to describe himself as an agnostic. I suspect his references to God in his writing were from habit.Interesting that he appeals to God.
I'm not sure why you would expect him to. Darwin expressed his views on slavery to his contemporaries. Apart from that he was an exceptionally private person. It even took others to argue evolution on his behalf. Add in the fact that he was not well for a major part on his adult life and lived a country life removed from these type of issues and his lack of involvement in abolition is unremarkable.Also, history records that he did nothing whatsoever about slavery. Nothing.
While the Edinburgh Royal Society did a little peer review back in the 1730s, generalised peer review didn't come into effect until after WW2.The title of his non-peer reviewed book had an original title later edited as it used “favored races” in it. He was not referring to humans but still it had to edited.
Christianity has not always seen all men as equal. In fact our current concept of equality owes much to the atheistic inclinations of the French Revolution.The christians worked to end slavery because we see God creating all men equal. This would not come from the evolutionary theory. Quite the opposite actually.
I thought the peppered moth story had been faked with pinned-on moths to tell a "good story" but was not actually an observed fact in nature when it comes to natural selection.
Just so no lone gets the idea I am expressing my POV again - here is the link
Talk:Peppered moth - Wikipedia.
Does this verse convey that all men are equal???
Jonah 4:
11 Should I not also have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 people, who do not know the difference between their right hand and their left, as well as many animals?”
It's an odd story about a preacher sent by "Jehovah" to a distant city and something about a gourd. (It be more comprehensible if translated into modern English, or even modern Australian.)
I'm not sure why you would say this has anything to do with equality of all peoples.
I don't know the difference between my right and left hand but I've never thought of that as a handicap. Its just a bit of a nuisance when giving directions. In fact, since I can 'mouse' with either hand, it's a bit of an advantage.God saying that a race of peoples were handicapped ???
I don't know the difference between my right and left hand but I've never thought of that as a handicap. Its just a bit of a nuisance when giving directions. In fact, since I can 'mouse' with either hand, it's a bit of an advantage.
OB
It’s quite easy for me. All I need do is identify the person who is charitable and accepting of others.As I said, in my experience atheists cannot discern believers from non-believers. It’s not always easy for believers but we have a much better chances. Inconvenient or upsetting play no role.
Thanks Carl. That will be useful.ust put your fingers together and hold up your hands in front of you wth thumbs out...
One hand makes the shape of the letter L.
And feel sorry for those back then that didn't have our alphabet...
I don't know the difference between my right and left hand but I've never thought of that as a handicap. Its just a bit of a nuisance when giving directions. In fact, since I can 'mouse' with either hand, it's a bit of an advantage.
OB
I've heard about those who don't know their left foot from their right, but that's usually just a way to say they're clumsy, or specifically, that they can't dance. Never heard of not knowing left from right hands though.
If we're going to base our views on a scientific study on quotes in a Talk comment associated with the development of a Wikipedia article - two can play at that - from your link:
Perhaps Coyne and you should have read this Wikipedia article, or any of the rest of the scientific literature. The photos weren't "faked" -- they weren't supposed to be evidence that moths rest on tree trunks, they were only for the purposes of showing the contrast in color between the moths and their background. And the theory of evolution is extremely well established, as Coyne would be the first to tell you, and the peppered moth has nothing to do with it; it's just a particularly striking example of adaptive evolution in response to natural selection. -- Jibal 11:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
OB
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?