Mriana Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I didn't see this in the first three pages of this area and thought about posting it before, until New Scientist removed it. Someone else has put it up on their blog: http://lambdadelta.wordpress.com/2009/03/1...ligious-agenda/ I also think it is a valuable article that is worth sharing and discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Not bad indeed. Couldn't tell me anything new, but then I've beaten morontheists to a bloody pulp for years... one would expect me to have seen at least many of their tricks already, if not all of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 I wonder why people who are for intellegent design like to say Darwinists and Darwinism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Morontheists bow mindlessly to the "authority" of their scripcha and/or their cult Führers. In their feeble minds "ebilushenists" must do the same, just to a different authority, so they call them Darwinists as if Darwin was the high priest of ebilushen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 I'm a bit confused over this bit though: Misguided interpretations of quantum physics are a classic hallmark of pseudoscience, usually of the New Age variety, but some religious groups are now appealing to aspects of quantum weirdness to account for free will. Beware: this is nonsense. The group I hear this argument from is the philosophers who argues against dualism, and not the religious. I have not heard any religious group take up this idea yet, so I wonder which one that would be. To place free will in nature and explain it with quantum mechanics is so far the only thing that can save free will today, if it's not so, we are forced to accept a complete deterministic existence and finally concede that free will does not exist at all. For instance Robert Kane and Ted Honderich have both played around with this idea for a while. It's not that there's any conclusion that this is a correct assumption--actually it is a criticized idea--but I haven't seen any of these philosophers (who is considered to be the forefront of free will and philosophy of the mind) to have any religious agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriana Posted April 26, 2009 Author Share Posted April 26, 2009 Morontheists bow mindlessly to the "authority" of their scripcha and/or their cult Führers. In their feeble minds "ebilushenists" must do the same, just to a different authority, so they call them Darwinists as if Darwin was the high priest of ebilushen. Monotheists bow mindlessly to religious authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Monotheists bow mindlessly to religious authority. I have to disagree here for the sake of fairness toward the vast majority of moderate/liberal christians who surround me over here Some do, for sure... that those ones I call morontheists. But most folks over here... well... you get what I want to say doncha? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts