Google Fight!

That's very misleading. If you go to google and enter "intelligent design" with the quotes, you only get 750,000 hits, vs. 19,600,000 without the quotes.

On the other hand googling for Darwinism yields only 598,000.

"Pee Wee Herman" beats "William Dembski" 199,000 to 37,200.

Been There, Done That.

This seemed hopeful:

Love: 153,000,000
Hate: 29,400,000

Then I got:

War: 203,000,000
Peace: 83,700,000

So I guess we still have a long way to go.

Christian: 78,000,000
Atheist: 2,000,000

Whoa! David Evans really pulled a surprise on us, eh? Woo-ee! I'm sure Matt will have his vestigal tail between his legs after reading that!

\\\\>> Check out David Evans link on his name to inhale the profundity of an average (sincere, too, in the most pedestrian meaning of the word) intelligence.

David, do you regularly consider that there may be something wrong, even false, about your beliefs, and especially about how others professing similar beliefs abuse them? No? Have you ever really considered these questions?

I believe you are sincere, but your writing on the link also shows me, and I do not write this wishing you ill (quite the opposite), your faith is thin as cardboard, however often you put another coat of whitewash over it.
If you dig a bit deeper into what you've written, you'll find there are some obvious moral flaws that need attention. It is having the Christian God defended in such ways that has pushed me into the Atheist camp, as far as public beliefs go: no God such as the one you present could possibly exist, except as a set of lies some group has agreed, for whatever reasons, upon. With many interesting exceptions, Chritianity at this time, at least, is a silly and twisted crock of nonsense.

Nothing I "know" (and I seem to know way too much) is correct in the way I pretend to knw it, and I have to spend a lot of time reminding myself of that likely fact to get on with the Great Work of living.

DarwinFinch.

I posted only to this particular article because I found it humorous. Is it beyond your understanding of Christianity to think that we could have a sense of humor?

As to your questions for me, yes, I consider these questions on an almost daily basis. It troubles me greatly to know that the lower-case "c" church abuses my own faith, and how those abuses drive people away from a relationship with God that is the anchor of my being.

I would ask you to remember that the lower-case "c" church is a construct of man, and as such, is inherently flawed. But I'd ask that you not throw the baby out with the bath. Yes, there are flaws and abuses and even criminal behavior that exist in the church. The same could be said of corporations, of government, of the world of academia, or of any other institution of man. But because something is flawed doesn't mean that its purpose isn't noble, or even that it's incorrect.

If you have allowed someone like me to "push you into the atheist camp", then people like me are doing an exceptionally poor job of representing ourselves and our faith, and you have my most sincere apologies. My faith isn't about other people, or their failings - it is about God, and His perfection.

My weaknesses and frailties and failures are too many to count. I'm a Christian not because I am superior. I am a Christian because I am a failure.

However, I would suggest to you that you know nothing of my faith. I'm not very smart - that's obvious enough by my writings and by my own admission. I'm not charismatic enough nor knowledgeable enough to change the world. My morality is imperfect and suspect, and as you rightly point out, it is badly flawed.

But I keep working on myself, and with God's grace, I hope to continue to improve who I am as a human, and to hopefully help others discover what I know of God.

Thank you for your comments, as they remind me of the work I have before me, and why that work matters.

I don't know what you know, nor do I know how well you know it. I hope that whatever you know, you bring it to bear on humanity in a way that best satisfies your own convictions.

I fail to understand why you feel the need to degrade me, as you have done in your comments, but that's not for me to understand - it's only for me to learn from and take to heart as they apply to my life and my personal growth.

Thank you,

-david

One more thought on this, DarwinFinch, since you asked me some questions which I attempted to answer. I'm hopeful that perhaps you'll be as candid in your answers as I attempted to be in mine.

You wrote:

" ...no God such as the one you present could possibly exist, except as a set of lies some group has agreed, for whatever reasons, upon. With many interesting exceptions, Chritianity at this time, at least, is a silly and twisted crock of nonsense."

As you have questioned my sense of morality: Does it fit within your own morals to berate or disregard what others believe? Or are your stated opinions above the result of being treated similarly by people who claim to be acting in God's name, and you are merely lashing out at me as a result of the poor behavior of others?

Do you regularly consider that there may be something wrong, even false, about your beliefs, and especially about how others professing similar beliefs abuse them? No? Have you ever really considered these questions?

Thank you again for your kind consideration. I'm here to learn, and have little to teach in return.

-david

Evolution bests Creationism Evolution: 39,300,000 Creationism: 700,000

His arch-nemesis, at least in the blog sense, would be found at http://www.pandasthumb.org - a scientific blog that seems to feature an inordinant amount of "fundamentalist" or "evangelical" bashing. And aside from the proselytizing, could be a very interesting site as well.

I've met many, many preachers in my time. I've yet to meet the Christian preacher, regardless of denomination, who doesn't profess Christianity to be the "right" way and everything else wrong and derrived of Satan. This is, of course, a "bash" on all other religions.

Withing Christianity, there is the same problem. The Fundies bash everyone not a fundy and frequently get into pissing contests of their own. Church of Christ says that if you're not Church of Christ you don't go to heaven. Period. Mormons are cult and relegate all non-Mormons to the lowest (third) circle of heaven and have the hubris to baptize the dead of other religions so they can ascend to the second circle of heaven. Most everyone bashes the Catholics who, in turn, pretty much, say that they're #1 and you need to come back and toe the line.

Nobody here is bashing you for your religion, when you're keeping it to yourself.

When you're not holding yourself up with smug superiority.

When you're not, as a group, trying to violate the Constitution of the United States by tearing down the Church/State seperation with bull-crap arguments.

We have a right to be free from YOUR religion and limited, superstitous, unenlightened world view. As much as you have a right to wallow in it...

David, do you regularly consider that there may be something wrong, even false, about your beliefs, and especially about how others professing similar beliefs abuse them? No? Have you ever really considered these questions?

It's a part of what I believe that people should lift each other up, and support and nurture each other, and care for each other in the best ways that we can.

I fail to understand why you feel the need to degrade me, as you have done in your comments

I've yet to meet the Christian preacher, regardless of denomination, who doesn't profess Christianity to be the "right" way and everything else wrong and derrived of Satan.

There are extremists among those who would label themselves "Christians", just as there are extremists who would label themselves "Agnostics", "Secular Humanists", and "Atheists".

What religion doesn't believe it is right?

David,

You make some telling points. Personal belief is just that; well, personal. When groups or individuals profess a belief and use it as a means to oppress or exploit others,(eg burning at the stake, now thankfully quite rare) that is obviously to be opposed and condemned.

But Science does not address belief, and I agree that some of the more rabid denunciations do the cause of Science a disservice.

When you're not, as a group, trying to violate the Constitution of the United States by tearing down the Church/State seperation with bull-crap arguments.

The individual plaintiffs include the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, the principal official of the Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy, as well as several persons who sue as parents and next friends of minor children attending Arkansas public schools. One plaintiff is a high school biology teacher. All are also Arkansas taxpayers. Among the organizational plaintiffs are the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the American Jewish Committee, the Arkansas Education Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers and the national Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty, all of which sue on behalf of members living in Arkansas.

But Science does not address belief, and I agree that some of the more rabid denunciations do the cause of Science a disservice.

You make some telling points. Personal belief is just that; well, personal. When groups or individuals profess a belief and use it as a means to oppress or exploit others,(eg burning at the stake, now thankfully quite rare) that is obviously to be opposed and condemned.

But Science does not address belief...

...and I agree that some of the more rabid denunciations do the cause of Science a disservice.

Christian: 78,000,000 Atheist: 2,000,000

— David Evans

Buddhism, Taoism and Zen make no claims to be "right". Indeed, all of them state explicitly that they don't "teach" anything. Anything at all. They don't have any doctrine to BE "right" or "wrong".

More GoogleFighting

Integrity: 59,000,000
Honesty: 9,230,000
Scientist: 60,800,000

Behe: 160,000
Dembski: 117,000

C.J. O'Brien,

I know nothing of Taoism, but that statement alone merely indicates that it's different than the ways of Jesus, et al. I don't see an implication of superiority.

As used in "that which can be named is not the Tao", "the Tao" refers to "the ground of being" or the fundamental underlying principle of the universe; "the way" is the way of the universe, which Taoists strive to act in accordance with; it says nothing about "the ways of Jesus" or anyone else. There are a couple of apparent problems, such as that, if it's the way of the universe, it shouldn't be possible to be out of accordance with it, and the statement appears to be self-contradictory, since that which cannot be named seems to be named "Tao", but I'm sure that, like other dogmas, the Taoist dogma contains answers to such apparent inconsistencies.

I'm not so sure. Isn't an anti-doctrine a form of doctrine? To me, when taoism says "That which can be named, is not the Tao," that's the same as saying, "The way of 'Jesus'(or Buddha, or Mohammed, etc.) cannot be the way," perhaps by elimination and not positive statement, but the central tenet of the belief system would seem to imply that others are, at best, misleading, if not 'wrong.'

I'm not so sure. Isn't an anti-doctrine a form of doctrine?

To me, when taoism says "That which can be named, is not the Tao," that's the same as saying, "The way of 'Jesus'(or Buddha, or Mohammed, etc.) cannot be the way," perhaps by elimination and not positive statement, but the central tenet of the belief system would seem to imply that others are, at best, misleading, if not 'wrong.'

As used in "that which can be named is not the Tao", "the Tao" refers to "the ground of being" or the fundamental underlying principle of the universe; "the way" is the way of the universe, which Taoists strive to act in accordance with; it says nothing about "the ways of Jesus" or anyone else. There are a couple of apparent problems, such as that, if it's the way of the universe, it shouldn't be possible to be out of accordance with it

, and the statement appears to be self-contradictory, since that which cannot be named seems to be named "Tao"

, but I'm sure that, like other dogmas, the Taoist dogma contains answers to such apparent inconsistencies.

As used in "that which can be named is not the Tao", "the Tao" refers to "the ground of being" or the fundamental underlying principle of the universe; "the way" is the way of the universe

"Wu wei", or doing nothing, is the Taoist ideal, and the monotheistic religions' emphasis on conversion and proselytization (and yes, I am skimming over the real difference between the other two and Judaism here, but Judaism does emphasize good works, which would fall under the same rubric) would strike a Taoist as exactly wrong, in a kind of "unintended consequences" way. But that is quietism, or anti-(any kind of)-activism; not anti-other-philosophies per se.

You are partially right --- 'wu wei' does indeed mean "no action". But this does not refer to passive inactivity. It refers to "not acting in ways that are in opposition to Tao". In other words, it means not wasting one's effort in things that are futile or impossible.

Wu wei refers to living in a state of p'u, where one's actions flow naturally from oneself, and are not produced by ideals or efforts imposed from outside.

I think we're saying the same thing--"wu wei" means "no action", and the interpretation I prefer (but it is only an interpretation) is "active inaction". It sounds like what you mean in the discussion of p'u. I did not mean to imply that Taoist inaction is passive, but it is certainly not activist, either. The contrast between "wu wei" and the activism of other religions is what I was trying to emphasize.

which Taoists strive to act in accordance with;

Taoism would mean don't consciously do good works just because they are good works.

56,700,000 for truth
3,310,000 for bullshit

Is this supposed to mean there is more truth on the web than bullshit?

I hope that's not the case.

T. Russ

that which cannot be named seems to be named "Tao"

Web Tip: Try removing quotes from your search to get more results. Your search - "bruce chapman is a damned liar" - did not match any documents. Suggestions: - Make sure all words are spelled correctly. - Try different keywords. - Try more general keywords.

Well, when I Google for "William Dumbski", nearly all of the 180 hits I get are from ID/creationist sites complaining that we big bad evilutionists call him "William Dumbski".

But hey, Googling "Dembski Isaac Newton of Information Theory" gives 763 hits --- more than "Dumbski" does. So cheer up, Bill.

Googling "Behe's bullshit" gives 455 hits. So presumably more people think Behe is a bullshitter, than think Dembski is dumb. And apparently more people think Dembski is the Isaac Newton of Information Theory than think Behe is a bullshitter.

Unless, of course, they are all just making fun of someone who is enough of a pompous ass to consider himself the "Isaac Newton" of anything . . . .

Nope, that which is called Tao, is not Tao. Tao cannot be talked about.

And yet here you are, talking about it.

But, like I said, the dogma always offers an explanation.

Is this supposed to mean there is more truth on the web than bullshit?

There's no such thing as "good" or "bad" works. Nothing is inherently "good" or "bad"; it is only our thinking that makes it so.

I point out in passing that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, who killed probably a billion people between them, were all professed atheists.

So if you want to start equating people's beliefs with those who "professing similar beliefs abuse them", you might want to look in a mirror once in a while ...Thank you, Ann Coulter for equating individual nonbelief with state-sponsered mass murder. Suggesting atheism was responsible for all those murdered is about as foolish as suggesting reason was the cause of the Inquisition.

I wonder how many religionists pulled the trigger in the genocides you mention?

That "whooshing" sound you heard was the sound of my point going right over your head.