Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Notice how the author walks on eggshells to not take a position on anything else in particular. This is because when God is eliminated it really only
leaves Darwinism and materialism as a world view.
Quote-mine. The context here is making claims about the existence of gods/godesses/pink unicorns.
ABE:
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are
made in this - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit"
atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.
atheism.about.com...
That is a little secret forward thinking Atheists like to keep in the closet. Dawkins has taken this quite a ways further in advocating the
abolition of faith in God. He calls parents teaching their children about God “child abuse”.
He talks about the abuse of childhood innocence, predominately related to scaring kids with things like the hell concept. A form of mental abuse,
filling kids with fear.
If true atheists make no claims or denials, then Dawkins is an atheist extremist, or perhaps a radical atheist.
Still relying on the quote-mine. Of course 'true' atheists make claims. If I said that the sky was blue, would that make me a radical atheist
because I should make no claims or denials?
So what Dawkins seeks to do is blame all war and violence on faith.
prove it.
However, it now looks like Darwin’s public theism may have been more for show. Upon studying his recently discovered private writings it
looks as if Darwin’s theism may have ended shortly before Origin of the Species was released.
And to do this you show some rubbish quote? He was an agnostic. He stated that he was not an atheist even in the 'most extreme fluctuation' of his
position.
Darwin 1887
I believe it is indeed fair, to infer a strong connection between Atheism and Darwinism.
If you say so. Pity that most people in the US who accept evolutionary theory is a valid explanation of the origin of species are actually
non-atheists.
The predecessors of Marx and Engels were Russian communists such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. They all agreed with Darwin's
theory of evolution.
No they didn't. I can't even be bothered showing Stalin's own words on this issue again. He had his own scientists with their own version of
evolution which was non-darwinian - Lysenckoism. Mao also depended on it.
Using such pseudoscientific approaches in agriculture directly led to massive crop failures, and the famines that caused many of the deaths you are
using in your sophistry.
Mao Tse Tung, who established communist rule in China, openly stated that 'Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of
evolution.' (4).
Probably a crank quote you picked up from a crank website. You can read through Mao's work if you can find it, reference it:
www.etext.org...
There is an undeniable unity between Atheism, the theory of evolution, and communism. Evolution claims that life is the product of blind
chance, we are not made in the image of a divine creator, and we are simply animals. Evolution is the scientific support system for atheism. Communism
is an atheist political ideology. It is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism.
Going big on the canards tonight, whammy. Should take it easy. Can rot the brain. Easily deniable.
The leading communist states relied on a neo-lamarckian theory. Many theists accept evolution. Atheist =/= communist. But communist sometimes =
atheist.
ABE: oh, and evolution doesn't say that life is the product of blind chance. It does say it was non-directed by things like gods. The 'blind'
watchmaker is the proposal.
However, there are other forms of communism, even christian
communism.
More importantly, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is due to violence and conflict (survival of the fittest). This
“natural selection” mechanism supports the concept of 'dialectics' which is a fundamental tenant of communist totalitarianism as witnessed in
the 20th century.
No it doesn't. Even if the theory of evolution was wrong, it is self-evident that violence and conflict are characteristic of nature.
All a major part of evolutionary theory says is that those who reproduce most successfully will come to dominate populations.
Richard Dawkins is wrong. Faith is not the root of all evil.
I think you are wrong by suggesting he said this was the case.
when Darwinism is taken away, no philosophy of 'conflict' remains. The three monotheistic religions that most people in the world believe in,
Christianity, Islam and Judaism, all oppose violence.
Pity they make little headway to stop it. You had almost 1800 years to show that the philosophy of non-conflict will dominate society.
ABE:
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Certainly Mel. In fact I will let Dr. Dawkins do the honor of saying it with his very own lips. This film is called "The Root of All Evil" it's
about all religion.
And one listen to the hate speech against ALL religious faith in this video ought to settle the damn conspiracy issue once and for all. This
not about just Christianity. Dawkins is after all faith.
Again, prove it. He doesn't actually say it is the root of all evil. It is the title of the series and it is 'The root of all evil?'
He has stated numerous times that to say anything is the root of all evil is silly. Listen to his own
words, rather than rely on superficial scholarship.
Mel I agree with you. But you know what? The Inquisition was perpetrated by Catholic crazy dudes. But we have to own ours and you airbrush
yours.
And what was the inquisition about might I ask? Wasn't anything to do with heresy was it? When you can show that Mao or Stalin killed
for
atheism, the comparison might hold. Communism =/= atheism not matter how much you try the logical contortions.
But I agree they were also crazy dudes.
[edit on 21-3-2008 by melatonin]
alot. 
