Rampaging Atheist Horde Targets Christianity

hrmwrm

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
1,717
Reaction score
58
Location
Alberta
Rampaging Atheist Horde Targets Christianity, Warns "Biblical Dinosaur" Expert Ken Ham
Bruce Wilson
Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:15:28 PM EST

As Young Earth Creationist impresario Ken Ham wrote in a July 6th post on his Answers in Genesis web site,

"Recently, atheists met at a conference in Copenhagen and released what they call their "Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life," which really means they released their statement of faith and their declaration against Christianity... These atheists think they can indoctrinate the public by their statements, but many are awake (and hopefully this blog post will help even more people to awaken) to their agenda to indoctrinate the public in their anti-God religion"



Mr. Ham is quite correct to be worried - there's nothing more menacing than atheists, especially European atheists (the worst sort) who produce such blood-curdling declarations of total war as the following document, which begins with a seditious declaration on the principle of "the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief."

[Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life]
* We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one's religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
* We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.
* We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.
* We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.
* We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.
* We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
* We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law - laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.
* We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.
* We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.
* We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.
* We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Well OK, perhaps it's not an especially chilling document after all but Ken Ham owns the secret ideological decoder ring that enables him to get at what the folks who drafted the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life are really up to. For example, the first declaration in the list,


* We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one's religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
...amounts to Orwellian doublespeak, explains Ken Ham. It really means this,


We recognize the unlimited right (even though we have no objective basis for "rights" in our system) to freedom of conscience, religion, and belief--except for Christians--and that freedom to practice one's religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others (this is the golden rule: "do unto others . . . " for which we have no logical basis in our way of thinking)--except for Christians, as we reject Christianity totally and must try to eliminate it.
And so on.

Ken Ham, who has spoken in venues ranging from tiny backwoods churches to Pentagon prayer breakfasts, is a noted proponent of the Biblical coexistence of humans and vegetarian dinosaurs :


"According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs "ruled the Earth" for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists' story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.
Other scientists, called creation scientists, have a different idea about when dinosaurs lived. They believe they can solve any of the supposed dinosaur mysteries and show how the evidence fits wonderfully with their ideas about the past, beliefs that come from the Bible....

The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29–30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants.

Sadly, it did not stay this way for very long."

Yes, Mr. Ham, it's sad.


http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/7/13/161528/370
 
You seem to be on a quest here?
Will you starting any conversations that aren't aggressive towards religion?
 
Hrmwrm, piggybacking on a cowardly article when he knows he couldn't debate Ken Ham for 5 seconds without looking like a fool. :rolleyes:

* We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.
And yet there's no evidence that God does not exist, nor is there any evidence of evolution outside of computer models designed to fit evolutionary dogma.
 
How's that proof of materialism coming, hrmwrm?
 
Will you starting any conversations that aren't aggressive towards religion?

well, you say that's all i do. don't want to disappoint ya.
 
And yet there's no evidence that God does not exist

none that he does either.

nor is there any evidence of evolution outside of computer models designed to fit evolutionary dogma.

actually, there is plenty.
maybe you'd like to show that evidence for god outside of the human imagination.
 
How's that proof of materialism coming, hrmwrm?
how's that evidence for god coming. maybe you can be the one to actually produce any.
 
And yet there's no evidence that God does not exist, nor is there any evidence of evolution outside of computer models designed to fit evolutionary dogma.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

Evolution is easier to observe in microorganisms in a short time-span. Plenty of fossil evidence of evolution in more complex organisms. Sorry. If you really want to argue that we were all created by god, then intelligent design is the only rational theory. However you cannot prove god exists, therefore evolution as a natural result of the big bang is the only theory that can be accepted. For God to exist, you need proof of his existence. Lack of proof of his non-existence does not equate to the existence of a god.


http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

This is an easier read than going through all that stuff on the first page I linked you to.... Hope this article helps a little bit.

Speaking of this, have you ever heard of the Lenski affair?
 
how's that evidence for gos coming. maybe ytou can be the one to actually produce any.

Again, I have not claimed that God cannot be proven through rational means. To attempt to reframe the issue to impose logical standard on an issue of faith is to take that faith out of context; self-serving, dishonest expediency.

You constantly imply the that the only logical, reasonable view is that God does not exist. That necessitates logical and/or empirical proof. Any and all logical and/or empirical proof of that notion is premised on materialism. Therefore, you need to justify that premise.

If you are not going to justify that assumption then it is the height of dishonesty to imply that your point of view has a monopoly on reason in this area. To persist in making that implication and in condescending to Theist views shows you to not be interested in anything approaching honest discourse; a troll with an axe to grind. Grind that axe somewhere else.
 
Again, I have not claimed that God cannot be proven through rational means.

i don't see you attempting it.

To attempt to reframe the issue to impose logical standard on an issue of faith is to take that faith out of context; self-serving, dishonest expediency.

the faith part is irrelevent. if you are going to claim god exists, then you had better be prepared to list some evidence.
otherwise, it's an idea without standard or merit.
 
flawed "absence of evidence equals evidence of absence" argument.



absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

The absence of evidence in support of a claim is not necessarily evidence that the claim is wrong. Often it is just that the person you are arguing with does not have the evidence. This can be for a variety of reasons, such as laziness, ignorance, lack of access etc. However, the onus to find evidence should usually fall to the person making the claim.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html
 
Again, I have not claimed that God cannot be proven through rational means. To attempt to reframe the issue to impose logical standard on an issue of faith is to take that faith out of context; self-serving, dishonest expediency.

You constantly imply the that the only logical, reasonable view is that God does not exist. That necessitates logical and/or empirical proof. Any and all logical and/or empirical proof of that notion is premised on materialism. Therefore, you need to justify that premise.

If you are not going to justify that assumption then it is the height of dishonesty to imply that your point of view has a monopoly on reason in this area. To persist in making that implication and in condescending to Theist views shows you to not be interested in anything approaching honest discourse; a troll with an axe to grind. Grind that axe somewhere else.

You don't need faith to not believe in something. You don't need evidence to not believe in something. You continue this proof by assertion argument that you need to prove god does not exist to believe he does not exist, and that is just not true.

You keep presenting your materialism argument in the context of "prove there is no soul and no god or materialism is just a leap of faith"(yes I know it is over-simplifying your argument, but meh) If you understood half as much as you claim to understand, you could come up with something a little better than you have been. Materialism is nothing more than the belief that the only things that are real are things that exist in matter and are observable. How do you prove that.... well, I think therefore I am. I'm sure you would be quite content to drag this into the quagmire of philosophical speculation, but no.

Absence of proof does not equate to proof of absence, however it is irrational to believe in something where you have no proof of its existence. Atheism is a perfectly rational belief until you can produce even a speck of evidence that there is a god.

How can you sit here and make arguments like that anyways? You have Foss in this same thread asserting that the only plausible belief is creationism and that evolution is fantasy despite evidence to the contrary, ignoring any evidence he has ever been presented with. Save your false indignation.
 
You don't need faith to not believe in something.You don't need evidence to not believe in something. You continue this proof by assertion argument that you need to prove god does not exist to believe he does not exist, and that is just not true.

Are you intentionally ignoring the specifics of my argument or are you simply to dumb to grasp it? I am beginning to wonder...
 
Are you intentionally ignoring the specifics of my argument or are you simply to dumb to grasp it? I am beginning to wonder...

In what way have I misrepresented your argument? Or is it so weak you are going to go with ad hominem as usual and hope people think you are posting something intelligent.
 
In what way have I misrepresented your argument? Or is it so weak you are going to go with ad hominem as usual and hope people think you are posting something intelligent.

No, you are simply too arrogant and foolish to actually grasp my argument. Maybe if you showed some intellectual humility, deference and a genuine interest in understanding opposing views of which you are highly ignorant, I might take the time to explain things to you. As it is, I see no reason to spend more time beating my head against the wall. The most basic aspect of critical thought is to be able and willing to question your own beliefs. Unfortunately you are incapable of that.

Someday, when you mature enough to realize that you don't know everything, you might be capable of an intelligent conversation.
 
No, you are simply too arrogant and foolish to actually grasp my argument.
no, it's very simple to grasp. you are saying i have to disprove your imaginary friend.
since no imperical evidence exists that can do that, then he exists.
problem is, you haven't proven IT real in the first place, nor supplied cooroborating evidence for existance.
only if you had evidence for existance, would empirical evidence be needed to prove it wrong.
so, i ask again. hows that evidence for IT coming along.
 
No, you are simply too arrogant and foolish to actually grasp my argument. Maybe if you showed some intellectual humility, deference and a genuine interest in understanding opposing views of which you are highly ignorant, I might take the time to explain things to you. As it is, I see no reason to spend more time beating my head against the wall. The most basic aspect of critical thought is to be able and willing to question your own beliefs. Unfortunately you are incapable of that.

Someday, when you mature enough to realize that you don't know everything, you might be capable of an intelligent conversation.

So in other words, I didn't misrepresent you in any way. You are just going to make an ad hominem attack and wait for Foss to stroke your balls. Then you are going to hope that people believe your petty insults. This is pretty much the exact same speech you get backed into a corner.

Once again, LOVE those ironic posts of yours. Projecting much?
 
no, it's very simple to grasp. you are saying i have to disprove your imaginary friend.
since no imperical evidence exists that can do that, then he exists.

I have NEVER argued that. It would probably be convenient for you if that was what I was arguing, but it isn't. The fact that you have to lie about me to defend your arguments tells that your argument doesn't stand on it's own.
 
So in other words, I didn't misrepresent you in any way.

No, you did.

You don't need faith to not believe in something. You don't need evidence to not believe in something. You continue this proof by assertion argument that you need to prove god does not exist to believe he does not exist, and that is just not true.

In this line alone you both misrepresented my argument and misrepresent the issue at hand. Is your perspective so myopic that you cannot look at any opposing point of view except through the lens of how it can be distorted to fit your viewpoint? Can you even see how you misrepresented me?

Do you even realize that your second sentence does not logically follow your first? I doubt it...
 
No, you did.


In this line alone you both misrepresented my argument and misrepresent the issue at hand. Is your perspective so myopic that you cannot look at any opposing point of view except through the lens of how it can be distorted to fit your viewpoint? Can you even see how you misrepresented me?

Do you even realize that your second sentence does not logically follow your first? I doubt it...

Ok, why don't you point out how? Go on. You feel you have been misrepresented, go ahead and tell us how. You keep insisting you have been. Should be really easy for you to say how instead of just making 3 posts insisting you have been misrepresented while trying to stay as vague as possible and just going to your standard ad-hominem.

...post wasn't directed at you.....

His wasn't directed at you, but you seem to have felt the need to jump in and defend shag. He was just agreeing with my summarization of shag's post. Shag is basically trying to say that unless hrmwrm can prove god does not exist, then atheism requires an imaginary leap of faith and that atheism is not a rational view. I had countered what shag had said by stating that unless there is any kind of evidence god exists, it is perfectly rational to believe he doesn't exist.

His argument would be best summarized in the following terms.

As long as you don't have proof the flying spaghetti monster does not exist, it is irrational to believe he does not exist, instead the only rational view is to believe it is possible that he does exist, and that you will withhold judgment until definite proof is found that he either does or does not exist.
 
I have NEVER argued that.
not in those exact words, but that is the implication.


You constantly imply the that the only logical, reasonable view is that God does not exist. That necessitates logical and/or empirical proof.

right there. you state that it takes empirical proof to prove that god does not exist. you are assuming it does exist without evidence, yet want me to provide evidence against.

yet again, if your going to claim something exists, you have to provide evidence for it.
you continuously fail to do that.
while you sound like your making an intelligent arguement, there is no basis for it.


If you are not going to justify that assumption

right after you justify your assumption god exists without evidence.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top