Originally posted by finneganHi, I was wondering what your profession is, your education. I am starting to read, with interest, your blog and not sure yet which side of the science/religion fence you are on, or are you a mugwump (your mug on on side and your wump on the other🙂 In your blog about Jay Gould's Rock of Ages, you say Gould does not have a good definition of religion and his relationship with Spencer.
[b]We are commanded to believe refers to believe the message of the Gospel.
When this may reach a person differs. But for most people the message arrives at birth when they are born into a Christian family.
But all have sinned. If your Muslim neighbors did not think that they had sinned they probably would not bother being Muslims in the firs ...[text shortened]... ich one might suggest a reasonable scenario in which to make a human sacrifice of your only son?
Can you give me a description of Spencer's main points? And in your blog I was not sure who was influencing whom, Spencer's ideas influencing Gould or Vice Versa.
Anyway, interesting read. Irish Catholic still? I have 4 Irish grandparents but a Jennings snuck in there somewhere🙂 Do you play Irish music? I do, played professionally with a band back in Venice beach, Southwind Irish band, got a number of good gigs. The IRA wanted us to be their official band but we thought we shouldn't get involved with them for some reason or other🙂
Ah, a quick look at Wiki says Gould was influenced by Spencer since Spence died in 1903. Answers that question anyway.
So today Spencer has both followers and detractors. Which one are you and why?
29 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAs I say, there are no absolutes.
Socially speaking, a moral code is a 'code of moral behaviour' that at least the majority of people in a given group adhere to; a collective understanding of what is right and wrong. - If 'everyone' is against it, who's moral code is it exactly? (Go on say God, I know you want to).
As I say, they are no absolutes.
Yes that should be the case if you are an atheist. Twhitehead, do you agree?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
29 Apr 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI would add to that 'Taxes' and 'Theists misunderstanding what it means to be an atheist.'
Well technically there is only one absolute for an atheist. And that is death.
(And even your 'death' absolute might not be absolute in the future, due to rapidly advancing technology. Perhaps humans of the future will simply be downloaded onto a USB stick or saved, not by Jesus, but onto a hard drive).
29 Apr 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWhat does 'what it means to be an Atheist" mean to you?
I would add to that 'Taxes' and 'Theists misunderstanding what it means to be an atheist.'
(And even your 'death' absolute might not be absolute in the future, due to rapidly advancing technology. Perhaps humans of the future will simply be downloaded onto a USB stick or saved, not by Jesus, but onto a hard drive).
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf you live in the UAE like I do you can avoid taxes 😀
I would add to that 'Taxes' and 'Theists misunderstanding what it means to be an atheist.'
(And even your 'death' absolute might not be absolute in the future, due to rapidly advancing technology. Perhaps humans of the future will simply be downloaded onto a USB stick or saved, not by Jesus, but onto a hard drive).
At least for now death is an absolute. Interesting that you blame theists for being too imaginative 😛
Would you care to enlighten me on what it actually means to be an atheist?
29 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonhouseThanks for reading my blog. I know its limitations. If I tried to improve it nothing would get done.
Hi, I was wondering what your profession is, your education. I am starting to read, with interest, your blog and not sure yet which side of the science/religion fence you are on, or are you a mugwump (your mug on on side and your wump on the other🙂 In your blog about Jay Gould's Rock of Ages, you say Gould does not have a good definition of religion and hi ...[text shortened]... estion anyway.
So today Spencer has both followers and detractors. Which one are you and why?
To answer your question about Spencer, Gould describes the use of Social Darwinist arguments in science textbooks of the early 20th Century. What Gould fails to make explicit is that Social Darwinism is not even consistent with Darwinism and is not derived from Darwin, but from a complete non scientist, a private individual with enough wealth to entertain himself as a classic Victorian man of letters, called Herber Spencer. Gould had a decent argument to make about the racist nature of science textbooks in the early 20th Century and the motivation of many well intentioned attacks on their use in schools. Gould certainly put a different and fascinating light on the Scopes trial. Sadly, he blew his own argument by implying that Darwin rather than Spencer was the evil genius behind Social Darwinism. If the opponents of these text books had understood their science, and not relied on a silly defence of literal biblical reading, then they would surely have been better equipped to see through their campaign against racist text books supported by pseudo non-science.
If you want a follower of Herbert Spencer today, you could look at the posts from Fishface the racist troll for example.