Souls and Evolution

[AV1611VET]

It's simply a set of guidelines to a happy life... one that was written as a contrast to the 10 commandments in the bible.

ETA: If I want a "happy life", I'll start with a Happy Meal at McDonald's.

On the other hand, if I want joy, I'll go to Christ.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Dawkins never claimed that these "commandments" were anything except guidelines set by a fallible human. He never said that they were supposed to "lead" to anything. Stop trying to put words in people's mouths if you can't argue with what they said itself.

 

[Cabal]

I already answered it for you here: 232.

Looks like you didn't even recognize it when you stepped over it.

Someone needs a course in Basic Theology, do they?

Take the attitude elsewhere, AV. I saw your answer before I replied - that didn't mean I was going to let your random shout-out go unanswered.

(Actually, come to think of it, I've barely posted in this thread the last while - and one of those posts was criticising a post of someone that was on the evolution side of things *gasp!*, so...yeah, what? )

 

[Jester4kicks]

ETA: If I want a "happy life", I'll start with a Happy Meal at McDonald's.

On the other hand, if I want joy, I'll go to Christ.

I seem to recall someone saying something about "opiate of the masses"....

Some folks just have interesting drugs-of-choice.

 

[Cabal]

Differences:

Dawkins doesn't claim his "commandments" are from god.

Dawkins doesn't claim his "commandments" will lead to salvation in the afterlife.


It's simply a set of guidelines to a happy life... one that was written as a contrast to the 10 commandments in the bible.

I'm failing to see how following the original 10 commandments won't lead to a happy life. Less materialism, lusting, broken homes, dishonesty. Sounds like a pretty decent start?

 

[Jester4kicks]

I'm failing to see how following the original 10 commandments won't lead to a happy life. Less materialism, lusting, broken homes, dishonesty. Sounds like a pretty decent start?

Refer back to Carlin's take on them. They're not terribly bad guidelines... they're simply rich in what Carlin calls "spooky language", and their reliance on the divine as inspiration is unneccesary.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Mathematics is the only valid theology. All the rest is specious jactitation.

Thanks for the cool new word: jactitation.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Dawkins can take a hike.

Unless you can show me, from his documentation, where (or to whom) these made-up commandments are to lead, please don't try to impress me with them, or I'll do what I do best --- put your junk philosophy through a sharp, two-edged Shredder.

"... a sharp, two-edged Shredder."

Is that what you actually think you're doing?

 

[Cabal]

Refer back to Carlin's take on them. They're not terribly bad guidelines... they're simply rich in what Carlin calls "spooky language", and their reliance on the divine as inspiration is unneccesary.

Well, they do come in a simpler version, but one of the two does involve God a bit.

 

[gaara4158]

"... a sharp, two-edged Shredder."

Is that what you actually think you're doing?

Indeed, he seems to think he's quite the PWNer when it comes to apologetics. He and dad sure have some delusions of grandeur...

 

[MrGoodBytes]

"... a sharp, two-edged Shredder."

Is that what you actually think you're doing?

He fancies himself a kind of common man's sage, putting us snobby intellectuals in our places and showing that all that fancy book-readin' and science-doin' is no match against a god-fearing Baptist, lacking as though his education might be.

If I wouldn't hold myself to such stringent standards when it comes to armchair psychiatry, I would suspect he might be suffering from split personality disorder, one part of him getting his behind handed to him from everybody everytime he posts, the other "pwning" his opponents left and right with hilarious one-liners and devilishly clever semantics. Otherwise, I wouldn't know how one could manage to be so completely and utterly wrong about literally everything, from history, politics and the most basic concepts of science to his own religion and back.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

He fancies himself a kind of common man's sage, putting us snobby intellectuals in our places and showing that all that fancy book-readin' and science-doin' is no match against a god-fearing Baptist, lacking as though his education might be.

If I wouldn't hold myself to such stringent standards when it comes to armchair psychiatry, I would suspect he might be suffering from split personality disorder, one part of him getting his behind handed to him from everybody everytime he posts, the other "pwning" his opponents left and right with hilarious one-liners and devilishly clever semantics. Otherwise, I wouldn't know how one could manage to be so completely and utterly wrong about literally everything, from history, politics and the most basic concepts of science to his own religion and back.

Well said!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Dawkins can take a hike.

Unless you can show me, from his documentation, where (or to whom) these made-up commandments are to lead, please don't try to impress me with them, or I'll do what I do best --- put your junk philosophy through a sharp, two-edged Shredder.

If "__________ can take a hike" is your idea of "a sharp, two-edged shredder," then I pity you, AV...

(...even more than I did before)

 

[USincognito]

I'd really like to support Blockbuster, since its HQ is in Dallas, but the convenience of Netflix cannot be beat.

 

[Naraoia]

Mathematics is the only valid theology. All the rest is specious jactitation.

If I were a mathematician, I'd make that my sig.

 

[Hespera]

He fancies himself a kind of common man's sage, putting us snobby intellectuals in our places and showing that all that fancy book-readin' and science-doin' is no match against a god-fearing Baptist, lacking as though his education might be.

If I wouldn't hold myself to such stringent standards when it comes to armchair psychiatry, I would suspect he might be suffering from split personality disorder, one part of him getting his behind handed to him from everybody everytime he posts, the other "pwning" his opponents left and right with hilarious one-liners and devilishly clever semantics. Otherwise, I wouldn't know how one could manage to be so completely and utterly wrong about literally everything, from history, politics and the most basic concepts of science to his own religion and back.

Possibly we all had at least one kid we remember from grade school who always had to get attention, always thought of some quip for the teacher, always the clown. I imagine Robin Williams and some of our other hyper personality comedians were absolute nightmares for their teachers.

The internet gives some others an outlet that they wont get on the stage.

Of course, everyone tries to cure those kids by ignoring them, but they just up the ante. At least, in person. Just might work on the internet.

 

[BananaSlug]

Dawkins can take a hike.

Unless you can show me, from his documentation, where (or to whom) these made-up commandments are to lead, please don't try to impress me with them, or I'll do what I do best --- put your junk philosophy through a sharp, two-edged Shredder.

There are not meant to "lead" anywhere. They are just common sense guidelines that are above any religion. You don't need a God to tell you what is right or wrong. A lot of what Dawkins stated is essentially the same as many of the 10 commandments. If you put those guidelines through a shredder, you might as well put the 10 commandments through (and a lot of what Jesus said).
Why do guidelines have to "lead" to somewhere to be taken seriously? Obeying the speed limit doesn't "lead" to God, they are made-up commandments. Do you follow the "junk philosophy" of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are not meant to "lead" anywhere. They are just common sense guidelines that are above any religion. You don't need a God to tell you what is right or wrong. A lot of what Dawkins stated is essentially the same as many of the 10 commandments. If you put those guidelines through a shredder, you might as well put the 10 commandments through (and a lot of what Jesus said).
Why do guidelines have to "lead" to somewhere to be taken seriously? Obeying the speed limit doesn't "lead" to God, they are made-up commandments. Do you follow the "junk philosophy" of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

When a road leads to Christ, and you close that road and open a new one --- it had better lead somewhere.

I suspect --- and again, I haven't read the book --- the new road leads to "me".

Which is just what Lucifer wanted to do --- supplant God with himself.

Dawkins can take a hike, and take his "another gospel" with him.

 

[MoonLancer]

When a road leads to Christ, and you close that road and open a new one --- it had better lead somewhere.

and if it doesn't, what then? many who are wiser then you have seen the end of that road and know it is a dead end.

I suspect --- and again, I haven't read the book --- the new road leads to "me".

as does the bible. Believing in something out of fear is certainly a road that leads to 'me'

Which is just what Lucifer wanted to do --- supplant God with himself.

Actually no kidding aside, Lucifer is quite the unintended romantic hero if you ask me.

Dawkins can take a hike, and take his "another gospel" with him.

wow, it would be great if i could go back in time to England and tell the christains that when they first arrived.

 

[AV1611VET]

wow, it would be great if i could go back in time to England and tell the christains that when they first arrived.

I pray that some day you will be able to converse with them (by going forward in time --- not back).