New thought about Pascal's Wager

[durangodawood]

I prefer Pascal's rager.

 

[ecco]

I just saw the Brick Bible tonight at Borders.

wrote by an athiest.

interesting.

A satire of christianity written by an atheist...

...What's your point?


BTW, I had never heard of the Brick Bible.

 

[bhsmte]

I just saw the Brick Bible tonight at Borders.

wrote by an athiest.

interesting.

Yep, a lot of books out there, written by a lot of different authors.

 

[bhsmte]

Some people will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves of things they really wish were true.

Indeed. A strong psychological need to believe something, will do this and the person's behavior, will provide many clues.

 

[Davian]

sure, because I don't think that saying -I am shifting -your shifting

- of the burden of proof

...will hold any water,


-but then again I can be wrong.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. That would be you.

Will you ever get around to demonstrating the veracity of your own position? No?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Our faith is Eastern Orthodox Christianity:
"Holy Orthodoxy: The Ancient Church of Acts in the 21st Century",

. If you, outsider, have "coherent" faith You must destroy my faith. Because they are different and true faith hates any false teaching. Same are doing the atheists to theists: they are destroying the theism. Now one can understand it: atheists tend to Verity (this tendency comes from God in the basis of human), so in his sickness he destroys One (in his eyes Verity is false, but satanic Lie is Truth -- atheist is sick in mind).

Dmitri,

The video is appreciated, and I understand the Eastern Orthodox position on faith. However, you misunderstand my use of the term, "Coherent." When I use that word, I am not signifying a FORM of faith that contrasts with Orthodox. Rather, I am signifying a position in Epistemology, a theory as to how we view the structure of truth and also the process of 'knowing.' On a more formal level, other Christians would probably identify me as Protestant.

As far as doctrine is concerned, I appreciate the Orthodox Church, as I do the Catholic Church, as well as various Protestant denominations. More specifically, I consider myself an Ecumenical, Historical Christian (even though I presently attach myself to the Baptist church). What do I mean by Historic Christian? By that I simply mean I reserve the right, and the privilege, in Christ, to draw from 2,000 years of diverse expression from the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestants Christian voices in the Church, with the voice of Christ being Supreme, and His Apostles and Prophets being Primary.

The core of OUR faith, that is, YOUR and MY faith, is the same, or at least, similar enough. If there is difference, it is more in the liturgy and extra-biblical culture in which our churches live than in our identification and communion with the Holy Trinity.

Why would I have to destroy your faith to make room for mine? I will not attempt to do any such thing. Your faith is valid in Christ, as is my faith in Christ.

Thank you for being concerned about my condition of faith, as well as about the lost direction of those who do not know Christ, or have walked away.

BUT ...

Please keep in mind while you are here on Christian Forums that you are not permitted to infer, imply, or assert that Christians of other parishes, denominations, or churches are less than Christian.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Dmitri... assert that Christians of other parishes, denominations, or churches are less than Christian.

The Verity exists. Proof: if "No Verity" is True, then it is Verity. Proof ends. Saviour Jesus prays to the Father: "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17 NIV). I see here no commandment to Christians to glue the different names to word "Christ". Moreover:
Holy Spirit says: "My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1 NIV). One can not melt together Catholicism and Orthodoxy: in first Holy Spirit originates from Son, in second originates not. Therefore, there is no God Holy Spirit in melted "Christianity". If I will be banned because of Truth, I will be glorified by Holy Spirit. Thank You.
Or you suggest to reject the knowledge of Holy Spirit's origin? And some other knowledge? And some other knowledge?... Then you will end in atheism/solipsism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

However, you misunderstand my use of the term, "Coherent." When I use that word, I am not signifying a FORM of faith that contrasts with Orthodox. Rather, I am signifying a position in Epistemology, a theory as to how we view the structure of truth and also the process of 'knowing.'

Dude, you are going light years over his head. Don't even bother.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

Still the same old same old, though - lots of questioning evolution, no peer reviewed work supporting ID on its own merits.

first of all peer review has major flaws, and is snobby.

second it's not kind toward new innovation.

hence the resistance to ID.

but the peer reviews are in the dozens at the moment,

I believe I have access to about 12 of them.

more or less.

two or three are excellent, the others are more generalized and speak of some type of design,

2-3 are directly correlated to design as it relates to intelligence behind it.

 

[createdtoworship]

A satire of christianity written by an atheist...

...What's your point?


BTW, I had never heard of the Brick Bible.

the brick bible is not for kids, and depicts graphically some of the sexual aspects of the Bible.

we know people have sex,

but we don't need to see it.

the author obviously from an athiestic perspective did not think about that.

very well done as far as creativity.

and artistry.

but not one I would recommend or buy, ever.

one picture had entrails spilled out, looking like worms.

one lego scene had a person's body cut up into 12 pieces with blood and gore of a rated R horror movie.

all stories from the Bible, but depicting them graphically is wrong.

on many levels.

it's gross and disgusting.

anyway, I thought it was interesting.

what if I made a lego masterpiece of the humanist manifesto or something?

that would not strike you as odd?

It would look to others that not only was I marketing it, but that I was extremely interested in it, more than a typical non believer would be so.

so that was all I was saying,

it's a marketing ploy yes, but he got extremely devoted to this project,

I could say obsessed"

so too with him, it appears he is more interested in it that meets the eye.

I am reminded of the montovo or whatever the guys name is that wrote the book in intelligent design.

Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Paperback)
by Bradley John Monton

Old amazon link didn't work, this one may not either ....
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1551118637/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

so you have even athiests pouring hundreds of hours into something that should be their enemy.

that is at least very unique.

and says alot about the reach of the scriptures in the case of the lego bible, and says alot of the intelligent design movement regarding the book.

 

[createdtoworship]

I prefer Pascal's rager.

alcohol throught the ages is a controversial thing.

wine in the days of Christ was common drink, as water had bacteria.

but it was watered down 1/4 wine, sometimes more.

but anyway, something to think about amidst your aimless strawman-izing of the thread.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yep, a lot of books out there, written by a lot of different authors.

like this one

Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Paperback)
by Bradley John Monton

 

[createdtoworship]

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. That would be you.

Will you ever get around to demonstrating the veracity of your own position? No?

but this conversation turned when you said this:

So let us apply this hard scientific method for objective empirical science to your theology. Or, do you have double standards?

so then when I asked you to prove it, you simply reversed it to a weak point on my end to dodge the responsibility of answering your own question.

so if you or someone else here can provide real science, then we have a standard to compare to.

but don't say Christians are not scientific, or the Bible is not scientific, when you yourself have no standard for science.

classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

also i the case of my arguments with ID, this applies.

don't say ID is not science when you yourself do not have peer review science stating your perspective side of the story.

but moving on...right now the fallacy I am observing in your posts is that , you are simply reversing the burden of proof.(shifting the burden of proof because you have no answer)

but I can be wrong in my interpretation of the history of our conversation, if so please correct.

thanks again.

 

[Eudaimonist]

first of all peer review has major flaws, and is snobby.

Major flaws? No. Minor ones, perhaps, and only in certain instances, not generally.

It isn't "snobby", unless holding high standards of research methodology is "snobby".

Peer review is essential to any scientific endeavor. Drop that, and science is replaced with pseudo-science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

Peer review is essential ...

any one who is not under the consensus of current scientific trends at the time is rejected from peer review, here is the evidence:

"Rosalyn Yalow, Günter Blobel, Mitchell J. Feigenbaum, Theodore Maiman, . John Bardeen, and Tuzo Wilsona" all were rejected from peer review boards for their submittals which later became famous in the field or received nobel prizes. All of this because of the nonconformity of their scope.

"Stephen W. Hawking is the world’s most famous physicist. According to his first wife Jane, when Hawking submitted to Nature what is generally regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected.7 I have heard from colleagues who must remain nameless that when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what I personally regard as his most important paper, his paper showing that a most fundamental law of physics called “unitarity” would be violated in black hole evaporation, it, too, was initially rejected"

above from:

Frank J. Tipler- Chapter 7 of Uncommon Dissent. Ch7= REFEREED JOURNALS -DO THEY INSURE QUALITY OR ENFORCE ORTHODOXY?
From Book : UNCOMMON DISSENT Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing Edited by William A. Dembski, 2004


So anything new in science is rejected as unprofitable, and not worth tax payers money.

in the next section I will show some motive's for evolution, again using evolution as an example of why consensus view of truth is wrong for science, and/or theology both:

evolutionists don't explore say, Intelligent design, because for one...there is no federal grant money in intelligent design. But, be it as it may, there a few every single year that make it to peer review, I believe I have a collection of about a dozen or more myself, and I know that that is not all thats out there. But back to the motive for evolution, at least A MOTIVE, not the only one. So don't put words in my mouth, but in a bad economy, with cutbacks all the more prominent. Evolutionists are running to whatever puts bread on the table, but can you blame them? Not really, it's really the governments fault. But I am not pointing fingers, lets look at some other philosophers ideas regarding this:

now the rest of this post addresses many motives for why evolutionists are evolutionists, not just the fiscal impact of it all....oooh there is much, much more....

Why is there more evolutionists than intelligent design advocates?

The reason why there are more Darwinian evolutionists is possibly due to fears of losing ones Job, or demoted/ refused to advance if you don’t comply or Fear of reprisal by evolutionary bosses.

As evidence of this claim I give two quotes:


Behe and geisler readily admit that one reason why the "more education...(the) less likely you are to reject" darwinism is


Michael Behe in the Harvard Political Review, “There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.”-Harvard Political Review- 5/12/02

also: geisler admits this too:- by admitting God, or anything other than evolution:

“Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution. Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”

evolution is where the grant monies lie. There is risk in any new venture in science, nonconformity is simply not profitable (most of the time).


Secondly, young indoctrination and uniformity of thought


Secondly, the younger the minds that explore evolution the more impressionable they are:

“Most students become acquainted with many of the current concepts in biology whilst still at school and at an age when most people are, on the whole, uncritical. Then when they come to study the subject in more detail they have in their minds several half-truths and misconceptions which tend to prevent them from coming to a fresh appraisal of the situation.”-Creation and the Courts, Norman Geisler- 2007

“Richard Lewontin (an evolutionary biologist and geneticist) once famously wrote a review of a book written by Carl Sagan and admitted that science is skewed to ignore any supernatural explanation, even when the evidence might indicate that natural, material explanations are lacking.”
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.2”
2Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997, 31.

Quote above taken from: Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels; J Warner Wallace; copy write 2013.

thirdly- More motives for evolution (morally speaking)

Richard Dawkins was justified in his remark that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist " in that sense, Darwin's "scientific' theory forms a necessary support for the beliefs of the committed materialist.-Tekton Apologetics

… In fact, the late Julian Huxley, once a leader among Darwinists, admitted that sexual freedom is a popular motivation behind evolutionary dogma. When he was asked by talk show host Merv Griffin, “Why do people believe in evolution?” Huxley honestly answered, “The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”36

Former atheist Lee Strobel reveals that he had the same motivation when he believed in Darwinism. He writes, “I was more than happy to latch onto Darwinism as an excuse to jettison the idea of God so I could unabashedly pursue my own agenda in life without moral constraints.”37
Author and lecturer Ron Carlson has had Darwinists admit the same to him. On one such occasion, after lecturing at a major university on the problems with Darwinism and the evidence for Intelligent Design, Carlson had dinner with a biology professor who had attended his presentation.
“So what did you think of my lecture?” Carlson asked.
“Well, Ron,” began the professor, “what you say is true and makes a lot of sense. But I’m gonna continue to teach Darwinism anyway.”
Carlson was baffled. “Why would you do that?” he asked.
“Well, to be honest with you, Ron, it’s because Darwinism is morally comfortable.”
“Morally comfortable? What do you mean?” Carlson pressed.
“I mean if Darwinism is true—if there is no God and we all evolved from slimy green algae—then I can sleep with whomever I want,” observed the professor. “In Darwinism, there’s no moral accountability.”38
Now that’s a moment of complete candor. Of course, this is not to say that all Darwinists think this way or that all Darwinists are immoral—some undoubtedly live morally better lives than many so called Christians. It simply reveals that some Darwinists are motivated not by the evidence but rather by a desire to remain free from the perceived moral restraints of God.”

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist -Copyright © 2004 Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek


36. Quoted in D. James Kennedy, Skeptics Answered (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1997), 154.
37. Strobel, Case for Faith, 91.
38. From the audiotape “Reaching Evolutionists,” at Southern Evangelical Seminary’s 2001 Apologetics Conference. Tape AC0108. Posted online at Impact Apologetics - Destroying Arguments and Taking Every Thought Captive to Christ!.

 

[createdtoworship]

any one who is not under the consensus of current scientific trends at the time is rejected from peer review, here is the evidence:

"Rosalyn Yalow....

continued





Princeton professor and Darwinist Peter Singer has used Darwinism to assert that “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”21 Yes, you read that correctly.
What are the consequences of Singer’s outrageous Darwinian ideas? He believes that parents should be able to kill their newborn infants until they are 28 days of age! These beliefs are perfectly consistent with Darwinism. If we all came from slime, then we have no grounds to say that humans are morally any better than any other species. The only question is, why limit infanticide at 28 days, or, for that matter, 28 months or 28 years? If there is no Moral Law Giver, then there’s nothing wrong with murder at any age! Of course, Darwinists such as Singer might reject this conclusion, but they have no objective grounds for disagreeing unless they can appeal to a standard beyond themselves—a Moral Law Giver.
Two other Darwinists recently wrote a book asserting that rape is a natural consequence of evolution.23 According to authors Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, rape is “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage,” just like “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.”24

Sources:
23. Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001).
24. Quoted in Nancy Pearcey, “Darwin’s Dirty Secret,” World magazine, March 25, 2000.

Ibid, Geisler, Turek

According to the atheistic community, abortion is viewed as moral. In his debate with John Rankin, Dan Barker said that abortion is a “blessing” (Barker and Rankin, 2006; see also Barker, 1992, pp. 135, 213).

From: Apologetics Press - Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?

Not only is abortion, okay, but Neitzie, Darwin, Stalin – (you name it), justified their behavior with the views of Evolution: “human beings are nothing more than animated biological machines”, and not to be deemed as valuable, or to be sacred.

A former Atheist writes:

“Let us think rationally for a moment, and ask ourselves; by what measure by should we infer which ideology had the most significant influence on an organization which promoted the torture, beating, starvation, roasting, gassing and dismemberment of millions of ‘non-aryan’ primates? Well, atheists and theists alike can agree on two leading candidates: On the one hand we have a belief system which, for all its inadequacies, advocated the eternal sanctity of human life for over four thousand years. On the other hand we have another belief system, constructed on the worldview of scientific materialism which postulates that human beings are nothing more than animated biological machines; combined with the naturalistic view of Darwinism which states that some human beings are naturally superior to others; combined, in turn, with the Nietzschean ‘superman morality’ where the ultimate purpose of the human primate is to triumph over all other primates by any means necessary.”
-Illogical Atheism- abridged volume- by Jinn Bo, 2013

If you have questions regarding Hitlers views on Evolution, and subsequent rejection of God, I have a separate work on that topic, as it is quite extensive.

But the point is, here that Evolutionists don’t view life as sacred. And it gets even worse,

According to Darwin, Evolutionists Have not moral conscience other than, survival of the fittest:

“A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones”
(1958, p. 94, emp. added).
From: Apologetics Press - Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?---

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=260

 

[createdtoworship]

Major flaws? No. Minor ones, perhaps, and only in certain instances, not generally.

It isn't "snobby", unless holding high standards of research methodology is "snobby".

Peer review is essential to any scientific endeavor. Drop that, and science is replaced with pseudo-science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

why are there evolutionists?

(in response to peer review error)

Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution. Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there is a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview

above from Norman Geisler, Frank Turek- I Don't have faith enough to be an atheist
evolution is where the grant monies lie. There is risk in any new venture in science, nonconformity is simply not profitable (most of the time).
-at this point I would like to show you a bit of a repeat but some clarity on some other posts that I answered regarding this, trying to answer most of the questions in as few posts as possible.

evolutionists don't explore say, Intelligent design, because for one...there is no federal grant money in intelligent design. But, be it as it may, there a few every single year that make it to peer review, I believe I have a collection of about a dozen or more myself, and I know that that is not all thats out there. But back to the motive for evolution, at least A MOTIVE, not the only one. So don't put words in my mouth, but in a bad economy, with cutbacks all the more prominent. Evolutionists are running to whatever puts bread on the table, but can you blame them? Not really, it's really the governments fault. But I am not pointing fingers, lets look at some other philosophers ideas regarding this:

now the rest of this post addresses many motives for why evolutionists are evolutionists, not just the fiscal impact of it all....oooh there is much, much more....

Why is there more evolutionists than intelligent design advocates?

The reason why there are more Darwinian evolutionists is possibly due to fears of losing ones Job, or demoted/ refused to advance if you don’t comply or Fear of reprisal by evolutionary bosses.

As evidence of this claim I give two quotes:

Behe and geisler readily admit that one reason why the "more education...(the) less likely you are to reject" darwinism is

Michael Behe in the Harvard Political Review, “There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.”-Harvard Political Review- 5/12/02

also: geisler admits this too:- by admitting God, or anything other than evolution:

“Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution. Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”

evolution is where the grant monies lie. There is risk in any new venture in science, nonconformity is simply not profitable (most of the time).


Secondly, young indoctrination and uniformity of thought


Secondly, the younger the minds that explore evolution the more impressionable they are:

“Most students become acquainted with many of the current concepts in biology whilst still at school and at an age when most people are, on the whole, uncritical. Then when they come to study the subject in more detail they have in their minds several half-truths and misconceptions which tend to prevent them from coming to a fresh appraisal of the situation.”-Creation and the Courts, Norman Geisler- 2007

“Richard Lewontin (an evolutionary biologist and geneticist) once famously wrote a review of a book written by Carl Sagan and admitted that science is skewed to ignore any supernatural explanation, even when the evidence might indicate that natural, material explanations are lacking.”
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.2”
2Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997, 31.

Quote above taken from: Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels; J Warner Wallace; copy write 2013.

 

[createdtoworship]

Dude, you are going light years over his head. Don't even bother.


eudaimonia,

Mark

RE: peer review error (p2)

thirdly- More motives for evolution (morally speaking)

Richard Dawkins was justified in his remark that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist " in that sense, Darwin's "scientific' theory forms a necessary support for the beliefs of the committed materialist.-Tekton Apologetics

… In fact, the late Julian Huxley, once a leader among Darwinists, admitted that sexual freedom is a popular motivation behind evolutionary dogma. When he was asked by talk show host Merv Griffin, “Why do people believe in evolution?” Huxley honestly answered, “The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”36

Former atheist Lee Strobel reveals that he had the same motivation when he believed in Darwinism. He writes, “I was more than happy to latch onto Darwinism as an excuse to jettison the idea of God so I could unabashedly pursue my own agenda in life without moral constraints.”37
Author and lecturer Ron Carlson has had Darwinists admit the same to him. On one such occasion, after lecturing at a major university on the problems with Darwinism and the evidence for Intelligent Design, Carlson had dinner with a biology professor who had attended his presentation.
“So what did you think of my lecture?” Carlson asked.
“Well, Ron,” began the professor, “what you say is true and makes a lot of sense. But I’m gonna continue to teach Darwinism anyway.”
Carlson was baffled. “Why would you do that?” he asked.
“Well, to be honest with you, Ron, it’s because Darwinism is morally comfortable.”
“Morally comfortable? What do you mean?” Carlson pressed.
“I mean if Darwinism is true—if there is no God and we all evolved from slimy green algae—then I can sleep with whomever I want,” observed the professor. “In Darwinism, there’s no moral accountability.”38
Now that’s a moment of complete candor. Of course, this is not to say that all Darwinists think this way or that all Darwinists are immoral—some undoubtedly live morally better lives than many so called Christians. It simply reveals that some Darwinists are motivated not by the evidence but rather by a desire to remain free from the perceived moral restraints of God.”

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist -Copyright © 2004 Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek


36. Quoted in D. James Kennedy, Skeptics Answered (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1997), 154.
37. Strobel, Case for Faith, 91.
38. From the audiotape “Reaching Evolutionists,” at Southern Evangelical Seminary’s 2001 Apologetics Conference. Tape AC0108. Posted online at www.impactapologetics.com.

Princeton professor and Darwinist Peter Singer has used Darwinism to assert that “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”21 Yes, you read that correctly.
What are the consequences of Singer’s outrageous Darwinian ideas? He believes that parents should be able to kill their newborn infants until they are 28 days of age! These beliefs are perfectly consistent with Darwinism. If we all came from slime, then we have no grounds to say that humans are morally any better than any other species. The only question is, why limit infanticide at 28 days, or, for that matter, 28 months or 28 years? If there is no Moral Law Giver, then there’s nothing wrong with murder at any age! Of course, Darwinists such as Singer might reject this conclusion, but they have no objective grounds for disagreeing unless they can appeal to a standard beyond themselves—a Moral Law Giver.
Two other Darwinists recently wrote a book asserting that rape is a natural consequence of evolution.23 According to authors Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, rape is “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage,” just like “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.”24

Sources:
23. Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001).
24. Quoted in Nancy Pearcey, “Darwin’s Dirty Secret,” World magazine, March 25, 2000.

Ibid, Geisler, Turek

According to the atheistic community, abortion is viewed as moral. In his debate with John Rankin, Dan Barker said that abortion is a “blessing” (Barker and Rankin, 2006; see also Barker, 1992, pp. 135, 213).

From: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=260

Not only is abortion, okay, but Neitzie, Darwin, Stalin – (you name it), justified their behavior with the views of Evolution: “human beings are nothing more than animated biological machines”, and not to be deemed as valuable, or to be sacred.

A former Atheist writes:

“Let us think rationally for a moment, and ask ourselves; by what measure by should we infer which ideology had the most significant influence on an organization which promoted the torture, beating, starvation, roasting, gassing and dismemberment of millions of ‘non-aryan’ primates? Well, atheists and theists alike can agree on two leading candidates: On the one hand we have a belief system which, for all its inadequacies, advocated the eternal sanctity of human life for over four thousand years. On the other hand we have another belief system, constructed on the worldview of scientific materialism which postulates that human beings are nothing more than animated biological machines; combined with the naturalistic view of Darwinism which states that some human beings are naturally superior to others; combined, in turn, with the Nietzschean ‘superman morality’ where the ultimate purpose of the human primate is to triumph over all other primates by any means necessary.”
-Illogical Atheism- abridged volume- by Jinn Bo, 2013

If you have questions regarding Hitlers views on Evolution, and subsequent rejection of God, I have a separate work on that topic, as it is quite extensive.

But the point is, here that Evolutionists don’t view life as sacred. And it gets even worse,

According to Darwin, Evolutionists Have not moral conscience other than, survival of the fittest:

“A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones”
(1958, p. 94, emp. added).
From: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=260

 

[createdtoworship]

sorry sort of out of order, however this is in response to peer review error and bias by evolutionists:

any one who is not under the consensus of current scientific trends at the time is rejected from peer review, here is the evidence:

"Rosalyn Yalow, Günter Blobel, Mitchell J. Feigenbaum, Theodore Maiman, . John Bardeen, and Tuzo Wilsona" all were rejected from peer review boards for their submittals which later became famous in the field or received nobel prizes. All of this because of the nonconformity of their scope.

"Stephen W. Hawking is the world’s most famous physicist. According to his first wife Jane, when Hawking submitted to Nature what is generally regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected.7 I have heard from colleagues who must remain nameless that when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what I personally regard as his most important paper, his paper showing that a most fundamental law of physics called “unitarity” would be violated in black hole evaporation, it, too, was initially rejected"

above from:

Frank J. Tipler- Chapter 7 of Uncommon Dissent. Ch7= REFEREED JOURNALS -DO THEY INSURE QUALITY OR ENFORCE ORTHODOXY?
From Book : UNCOMMON DISSENT Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing Edited by William A. Dembski, 2004


So anything new in science is rejected as unprofitable, and not worth tax payers money.

in the next section I will show some motive's for evolution, again using evolution as an example of why consensus view of truth is wrong for science, and/or theology both:

evolutionists don't explore say, Intelligent design, because for one...there is no federal grant money in intelligent design. But, be it as it may, there a few every single year that make it to peer review, I believe I have a collection of about a dozen or more myself, and I know that that is not all thats out there. But back to the motive for evolution, at least A MOTIVE, not the only one. So don't put words in my mouth, but in a bad economy, with cutbacks all the more prominent. Evolutionists are running to whatever puts bread on the table, but can you blame them? Not really, it's really the governments fault. But I am not pointing fingers, lets look at some other philosophers ideas regarding this:

now the rest of this post addresses many motives for why evolutionists are evolutionists, not just the fiscal impact of it all....oooh there is much, much more....

Why is there more evolutionists than intelligent design advocates?

The reason why there are more Darwinian evolutionists is possibly due to fears of losing ones Job, or demoted/ refused to advance if you don’t comply or Fear of reprisal by evolutionary bosses.

As evidence of this claim I give two quotes:


Behe and geisler readily admit that one reason why the "more education...(the) less likely you are to reject" darwinism is


Michael Behe in the Harvard Political Review, “There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.”-Harvard Political Review- 5/12/02

also: geisler admits this too:- by admitting God, or anything other than evolution:

“Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution. Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”

evolution is where the grant monies lie. There is risk in any new venture in science, nonconformity is simply not profitable (most of the time).


Secondly, young indoctrination and uniformity of thought


Secondly, the younger the minds that explore evolution the more impressionable they are:

“Most students become acquainted with many of the current concepts in biology whilst still at school and at an age when most people are, on the whole, uncritical. Then when they come to study the subject in more detail they have in their minds several half-truths and misconceptions which tend to prevent them from coming to a fresh appraisal of the situation.”-Creation and the Courts, Norman Geisler- 2007

“Richard Lewontin (an evolutionary biologist and geneticist) once famously wrote a review of a book written by Carl Sagan and admitted that science is skewed to ignore any supernatural explanation, even when the evidence might indicate that natural, material explanations are lacking.”
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.2”
2Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997, 31.

Quote above taken from: Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels; J Warner Wallace; copy write 2013.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

@gradyll