Ultraconservatives pretend homophobia/racism doesn't exist

Post Reply New Topic

LKL

"Christians: bad for society."

Also on an intellectual level
'while they are different arguments, either has inescapable implications for the other."

It would do me no good to encourage you to delineate between these two arguments. If you did have an understanding of them it would be harder for me to defeat your arguments with them.

However the assertion of those two arguments (along with the other thee put forward by Dr Craig) is not that they are interconnected; but that taken together they indicate evidence of the Christian faith's truth. No one is claiming that a single argument accounts for a closed case on the subject.

Deliniating btwn the two does not change the fact that each has implications for the other. They're not free-standing, independent constructs; they're pillars that are all supposed to be holding up the same edifice, and having one take the pressure in one area necessitates that another take pressure in another area. If the monument you're building is going to stand, then the metaphors that make it up have to work together to hold it.

And people can argue that their way is the right way.

Part of the idea of survival of the fittest the strongest passes on the genes to the next generation, that's even in herd animals.


Oh btw, it is Christian groups that are usually outraged about ideas to abort babies because they have Autism or Downs Syndrome, not Atheists. Apparently we aren't good for society.

Oh, I'm absolutely pro-choice, you're correct there. I would not voluntarily bear a down-syndrome child. There is no pre-natal test for autism.

That said, 'Survival of the Fittest' does not necessarily mean 'survival of the strongest.' Sometimes fitness means being the fastest, and sometimes it means being sedentary; sometimes it means having thousands of offspring at once, and sometimes only one at a time. Sometimes it means being the smartest, and sometimes it means following a successful pattern over and over without thought (think sharks). 'Fitness' is measurable only after the fact, by counting how many offspring (or better yet, great-offspring) an individual has that survive to reproductive age and successfully reproduce themselves.

The fact that autism, which is likely mostly genetic, is increasing in society could* actually imply that either autism (or some heterozygous partial form of it) is actually more fit in today's society than neurotypicalism.

*there are other possible explanations too.

This is not how they have been argued by Theists nor is it how they should be interpreted. Each argument exists independently of the other. Each has a supposition an argument and a conclusion. Taken together they make that states there is more of a case for the Christian God than there is for atheism. They are often debated on their own; often by other religions. For instance Islam would use only three of them (though the this produces an incomplete result does not seem to phase their apologists.

Essentially they do exist apart from the other. This is the case because the supposition and argument of one only leads to one conclusion. The answer supposed by another argument does not provide evidence for the others. This is no claim that this is the case to be rebutted.

To engage in the discussion with one; by using the rules of the other would be like trying to find the area of a triangle by using Pythagoras's theory; and then stating that this disproves Pythagoras.

...so you see skyfairyism as factual and evidence-based but think that it is impossible to find the area of a triangle by using pythagorean theory? really?

...maybe you should see if the serpent has any more of those apples left.....

One thing I find hilarious about this topic is the attempt to paint conservatives as hate-mongers when last I checked you tend to see a lot more hate on the left than the right.

one thing i find hilarious about this topic is that people find it so easy to pour just about every idea into one of two containers: "left" or "right."

i think the two sides need mascots.

i propose cuddly care-bears for the left.

maybe a fearsome grizzly bear for the right?

what do you think, inuyasha?

This defies logic. You cannot simply present an argument and disregard all of its implications beyond the single one that you want to emphasize. That theologists attempt to do so is perhaps not surprising, but it is also not intellectually honest.



On the contrary; it would be like using the pythagorean theorem to prove one point and then claiming that the same theorem does not apply to another point.

lately I have been thinking that perhaps a (socialist) family of wolves would work better for the left, and the right has already claimed the ('mama') grizzly bears.

No I think the Democrat emblem of a Donkey or the more unflaterring word for it is a much better symbol for the Socialists (considering that's what the Democrat Party is anymore (Socialists)).

the democratic party is less socialist than thomas paine was.

edit: also: the jackass is an excellent symbol for the democratic party but i think that when we make fun of that fact, we ignore the elephant in the room.

I'll take being an Elephant as a complement because if you know the old saying: "An elephant never forgets."

except that the elephant in the room is that the jackass is the perfect mascot for pretty much any politician.

maybe you should concern yourself more with ideas and ideals instead of who has a more appealing mascot.

that might help you avoid the foolishness of just blindly listening to glenn beck and reading matt drudge.

The Democrats are no more socialists than the Republicans are Nazis. It might feel good to spew out rhetoric like that, but it does not do the country any good to demonize the other half of the population (whichever side you start on).

Bad comparison, considering Republicans and Conservatives want nothing to racist/genocidal lunatics. While wasn't Barack Obama a member of the Democrat Socialist Party? I know they scrubbed their site during the 2008 election, but it originally had his name on it as a member.