News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

An honest evolutionist once said:


"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19

(read "the philosophy of meaninglessness" as evolution)


Aldous Huxley was the grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century.

Russ, as Russell2 has been writing elsewhere, we can see evolution as part of reality. What we choose to do about that is another matter.

Why should the fact that inheritable traits change from generation to generation, mean that we have to abandon our morals? Why should it mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want? This is nonsensical. Evolution has been happening before the human race was born and it hasn't stopped us from caring for each other and for our environment, nor has it stopped us searching for meaning. Many evolutionists are theists and many others, like me, still believe there is some underlying spirituality or connectedness in all things.

Enough with the straw men already. Why don't you engage with one of the science discussions instead of repeating the same baseless claims over and over?

Hi, Linda. Hi, Russ.



And just to further back up that statement, people who do not see the world from a spiritual angle at all and are true blue bona fide atheists have no reason to behave like savages either, have no reason not to want to care for their fellow man. I see the argument that atheism is a tool for committing atrocities crop up quite a bit on this discussion forum but for the record I don't believe in God and yet I consider myself a gentle individual and a practitioner of the Golden Rule.



I would also like to see the quotemining Russell pointed out in an earlier post addressed (where a quote allegedly from Darwin was from someone totally different (with a different set of beliefs)). That was an eye opener and I hope you can see why I'd say this, Russ T. I believe that responding to this would help your credibility and the perception that your fellow creationist posters may now have of you.

First, if you don't understand the relationship between evolution and morality, then there is a profound blindness occurring here.

Evolution's Moral Implications:
http://urlbam.com/ha/Kz

Jeffery Dahmer: The Influence Evolution Had On Me
http://urlbam.com/ha/M000c

Secondly, you are again changing the definition of evolution. The idea that evolution is simply "inheritable traits change from generation to generation" is nothing more than a retreat from the (now clearly ridiculous) definition of evolution that has been taught for decades (and to me) the world over.

To retreat an idea without admission is a lie, and unfortunately, evolution is full of lies and retreats.

Here is an excellent explanation of the current attempt for evolution to bandaid itself by changing its own defintion:

The Great Evolution Retreat
http://urlbam.com/ha/M000Z

Hi Russ T

First, if you don't understand the relationship between evolution and morality, then there is a profound blindness occurring here.

If you do not understand that there is no connection between the truth or otherwise of the theory of evolution or the observed fact of evolution and morality then you have a lot to learn Russ T.

Evolution says, for example, that if all the long legged creatures of a species die the species as a whole will get shorter, we observe that happening in the wild and in our own breeding work with Dogs for example. Now knowing that that is true does not force me to suddenly decide I should or reasonably could go out and rape the first good looking woman I see. It has no effect what so ever on my moral view of the world which is pretty close to the christian view except that I don’t believe it is or ever was OK to keep slaves or stone disobedient children to death despite the fact that the bible says that it was.

Did you know that there is an inverse relationship between your chances of being locked up in federal prison and your belief in god? The more fundamentalist the more likely you are to commit a crime worthy of the federal pen. Did you know that your religious beliefs also bear directly on your chances of having a failed marriage? If you don’t want to get divorced become an atheist as they have a significantly lower Divorce rate than fundamentalist christians closely followed by the Catholics.

So if we look at the stats on these moral markers what do we actually see. Those who accept god most literally have the worst morals by these measures while those more moderates who are also those most likely to accept evolution have, by these same measures, the best morals. So the evidence, yet again, contradicts your claims Russ T. It doesn’t matter how many talking heads you find in video’s who say otherwise Russ. People lie on camera, in print and face to face. What you need to find is evidence not good talkers Russ if you want to make a case for this.

What it boils down to Russ T is that, if morality is really important to you and this is not just part of a push for fundamentalist religion, you should be pushing people towards atheism and a belief in evolution and away from those beliefs that clearly correlate with poor moral outcomes, fundamentalist religion and all that it entails.

So which is it Russ T, do you really think that morals are a worthy goal or do you really just want to push your brand of fundamentalist religion on people because it appears that the two are mutually exclusive. You can’t have, on average, good morals and a fundamentalist outlook. Not that atheists are perfect or anything, far from it, but they do score better on these moral markers that your cohort.

In reason

Russell


George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group


http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=295
in an earlier survey atheist and agnostic were seperated and atheist was around 26% but I can't locate that survey right now.


Denise Golumbaski, Research Analyst, Federal Bureau of Prisons, compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997

The UK figures, which are very similar though their atheist percentage in the general population is higher than the US which is reflected in these statistics, can be found here. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1501.pdf

In most surveys in America recently Atheists make up between 8 and 19 percent of your population suggesting that atheists are dramatically underrepresented in your prisons.

Hey Russel12,

RussT periodically posts the same things without modification, and with no show of learning anything. He's also admitted to making certain arguments to stir the discussion without any regard for the truth of the claims.

I wouldn't say significantly, as what you have is a difference on the order of the margin of error, although there is a joke in Massachusetts that they allowed gay marriage so that the divorce lawyers could make a living in that state (lowest divorce rate in the country).

Again when you compare this to the proportions in the general population and make allowances for the different polls asking different questions, you end up with about the same proportion inside as outside within the margins of error.

There is also likely a greater correlation with income and education, than with belief, a factor that also play a hand in the divorce rates.

What you can is that the evidence proves that christian behavior is not morally superior to non-christian, whether it is another religion or non-religion.

This would, of course correlate with, and confirm, the logical conclusion that morality is derived from the society, not from the religion.

Enjoy.

Hi RazD

Yes I’m starting to get the idea that Russ T is not generally interested in the discussions he stirs up.

I think the differences in divorce rates are significant in every sense of that word, the sample sizes were sufficient to establish statistical significance, the differences were well outside the error bars, and the picture it paints is clearly significant to this discussion.

LOL I wonder what the divorce rate is among gay couples? Now that could add an interesting twist to this discussion. I guess there are not enough of them to assemble a statistically significant cohort at this stage at least.

The federal prison statistics could be skewed by a number of factors not the least being that it is seen as an out from prison to find god. The figures are however consistent world wide where this is not the case and they are statistically significant so I think they are worthy of discussion. You are right that socioeconomic factors may well play a part but many of those factors are also telling. It’s interesting to note both that the more educated someone is the more money they are likely to make and the less likely they are to be a believer? Why is there an inverse relationship between level of education and fundamentalist religious beliefs?

I think we can show a link between religiosity and immorality. Now whether that link is causal or the two correlate due to other factors I think is open to debate but there is a statistically significant inverse correlation between religiosity and morality I would suggest.

All the best.

Russell

R2: It’s interesting to note both that the more educated someone is the more money they are likely to make and the less likely they are to be a believer? Why is there an inverse relationship between level of education and fundamentalist religious beliefs?

Jeanie: Not within Mormons....but our church is also big on education.

Hey Russell2



The problem is to weed out the other factors, like education and economic level. One possible way to do that is to compare states on several statistics at once: divorce, child and spouse physical abuse, sexual abuse, education, religion, hate crimes, abortion rates vs age, teenage pregnancy, unwed pregnancy, health, etc and weed out some by showing different relationship rates in different states.

When I was fresh out of university the second time I was involved in a study of noise pollution, and one of the things we did was correlate noise pollution levels against violent crime levels, city by city. We found a straight line correlation between noise level and violent crime level, but the correlation slope was different between canada and the us.

When you have a result like that you can only conclude that both could be related to another factor not measured. We also found that a survey done of mensa people compared to general people showed no correlation in greater awareness of noise levels. Interesting time. The results are published and buried in some archive somewhere, many pages hand typed as it was several days before laptop computers.

Enjoy

Hi Jeanie

Yeah it's not specific to any church and I'm sure there are areas and churchs which buck the stat but it is, as a global average, true.

Russell

Hey RazD

That reminds me of another statistic that was telling, teenage pregnancy in the US is highest among fundamentalist christians due to their abstinence only birth control education. Hormones are going to get the better of people at a certain rate, especially young people, but those taught abstinence only contraception won’t be prepared for it and so they suffer for it.

Yes it’s hard to weed out all of those factors but the stats were US wide. Such factors should equal out unless, again, there’s a correlation between ‘risky factors’ and religious belief but that hidden factor would be most interesting if we could find it. Is it more likely for someone who’s a bad marriage prospect to be religious for instance? If that’s true it goes to prove that church is a bad place to try to pick up!

All the best

Russell

Perhaps you would need to consider (not talking about doing studies like you are, though) that these kids are often not "planning" on having sex and it just happens cause they get carried away after putting themselves into bad situations or flirting with the idea even though they know or think its wrong. I do know that UT has had one of the higher teen pregnancy rates at one time or another, and not sure why unless its the "jack" Mormon population. But then again, we have such high expectations we carry a lot of guilt around as a rule : ) UT's population is now outweighed by non-members anymore, too, so it may not be all members even. But the culture, still, is more wholesome. They have billboards for modest prom dresses, wedding dresses, etc. for instance. (You don't see that other places that I know of). Basically goes back to the adage "good girls get caught." Not always, and not all "good girls" but you get my point. My daughter just tried to skip but did it so blatantly dumb that I couldn't even give her an out if I'd wanted to. i chose to let her pay the consequences so she wouldn't keep doing it, but she's so honest she couldn't lie about it either and there were others who DID lie.... (It was Senior skip day but she'd also done it another time right before which is what got her caught).

Hi Jeanie

Perhaps you would need to consider (not talking about doing studies like you are, though) that these kids are often not "planning" on having sex and it just happens cause they get carried away after putting themselves into bad situations or flirting with the idea even though they know or think its wrong.

That’s exactly the point I was making, like all animals we are driven by hormones and instincts. Our conscious minds have some control over these but not total control. That is a fact of life we have to deal with and teaching abstinence only contraception ignores this, ignores our true nature. Many young people will get into situations in which they are challenged like this and not everyone can resist it (not that I personally think they always should but that’s another story) the problem for the abstinence only crowd is that they aren’t prepared for it when it happens while most others carry a condom or two and have some fun without getting pregnant, they don’t. All animals are driven to reproduce and we are no different. Ignoring human nature, ignoring one of the many lessons that ToE has to teach us as the abstinence only message does, causes problems as the statistics show.

UT = Utah is that right?

Kids will be kids, somewhere between kids and adults they have to face up to hormones and instincts that they are not prepared to deal with especially if they are given a very cursory abstinence only sex education. I think it’s far more important to teach them the whole truth, give them a fully detailed age appropriate sex education, and to teach them about consequences and respect for themselves and for others than to just say “DON’T”. Don’t is not in our nature. How many children first got the idea to take a cookie because mum said “Don’t”?

All the best Jeanie

Russell

Hi all

One of the things that tickles me about this thread is the title ‘Evolution Promotes "Sexual Freedom"’ as if it were possible for an idea to promote anything. It’s obviously a foolish statement, evolution is something that happens and the name we give to a scientific theory that explains it, it promotes nothing. People who understand and accept evolutionary theory, such as those Russ T quoted, may also promote sexual freedom but that’s not what Russ T is saying, he’s making the foolish claim that a scientific theory ‘promotes’ something as if it had a mind. I thought we’d moved past such animist ideas long ago.

So if we move past the inanity of the idea that a scientific theory can ‘promote’ anything we come to the next level of this statement, the idea that we should, automatically and without further thought, have a problem with the idea of promoting sexual freedom. The writer obviously assumes that this is something terrible and we should denounce those who do so. Is that a reasonable position to hold? What exactly is wrong with sexual freedom anyway?

Lets face it sex is fun, a lot of fun, but it carries dangers like so many things that humans do. I love flying, it’s the most amazing feeling to be at the controls of a small plane 6500 feet above the morning landscape seeing the miles drift lazily by the sun glinting off the water far below. Should I refuse this thrill because of the risks? There are several fatal plane crashes in the US every week, I read the accident reports so that I can learn from the mistakes of others so I’m well aware of the dangers. Should someone else tell me that I can’t take that risk? Should I give it up voluntarily? Risk is part of life. Even driving to work presets a danger to me. So long as I know the risks and go in with my eyes open shouldn’t I be free to take the risks I choose?

Obviously sex carries risks unwanted pregnancies, diseases and emotional hurts for example but many things we do carry risks. Why this obsession with sex? We have the means to mitigate the risks of unwanted pregnancies, we have methods to minimize the disease risks. The emotional risks are ever present but I think there’s truth to the saying “it’s better to have loved and lost…”, most people manage to overcome emotional hurts and we survive, learn and even improve because of them. There is a downside to avoiding sex too, a down side in missed opportunities to make the most of our lives, to have the most joy that we can in the short time we have on this planet. We only get once chance at this, just one short stay and then we’re gone forever. (yes this is coming from my position, I understand that if you believe in god’s and afterlives things look different).

Now the picture Russ T paints in his many posts here is that evolution promotes pretty much an anything goes attitude and/or a purely selfish one and I think that needs to be dealt with lest others here think that that is what I’m suggesting. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I said there are risks in many things we do and sex is no different. As rational beings (well somewhat rational beings at least) we have the ability to consider what we do and to try to work out what is best. A sexual free for all is not likely to produce a happy society or happy individuals in the long run so that’s not at all what I would promote but then repressive sexuality and the increased rates of unwanted pregnancies that go with the abstinence only position is not conducive to building the best possible society either. Somewhere in the middle is a happy medium. People need to learn to take reasonable precautions against disease and pregnancy and we all need to learn to take the feelings of the others involved into account in everything we do so that we avoid hurting people wherever possible. That’s not just how we should deal with sex but how we should deal with people wherever and whenever we interact with them.

Are the risks in sex so much greater than so many other things we do? Do not the rewards outweigh the risks so long as we take them with our eyes open and do what we can to mitigate them? In flying there are a long list of things that you must do before each take off to maximize your chances of surviving the trip. In sex there are a number of things that you should do to minimize your risks of coming to harm but in both cases the chances of a safe outcome are very high if you handle the risks appropriately so why the paranoia about sexual freedom?

In Reason

Russell

Jeanie: I agree. I've always thought kids need to know the "whys" for morality and this may sound "disobedient" to the Christian population, but I didn't just teach my kids not to just cause its "wrong." There are a lot of good reasons to wait. I've pointed out to them when their friends have messed up and EVERY TIME they had an unhappy consequence. If it does not happen within the proper bounds at least in time it will reap consequences because its natural law even on a social basis. I even watched a film in a psychology class which absolutely amazed me. They did experiments on these little animals (some kind of rodent, I think, but not just mice). The females that were indiscrimate about their partners were not good, nurturing mothers. And the monogomous partners WERE nurturing loving mothers. There was a direct correlation! Even with this latest case on CNN at night with that female lawyer. (The young woman who referred to her own little girl as a snothead and likely killed her. Her daughter was, apparently, getting in the way of her lovelife and that has happened before in the news).

I personally did what came natural to a degree when I came into young woman hood, (basic making out) but got burned in the process. (Raped). I couldn't even talk about it for a couple of decades. Then at 15, pretty much scared of guys, became a Mormon and stuck with the standards. (Before I'd had no guidance that way whatsoever. My dad had died when I was 12 just as I was coming into that phase). Anyway, though, my husband had trust issues with girls cause he was a musician and groupies made themselves readily available which he had no respect for. Funny, but girls think that's how guys want them to be and, I think, even if guys THINK they want girls to be that way, they really don't. Of course I don't think we evolved like you do and that we are much much more than animals. I agree the sex drive is a good, healthy thing and is there to ensure that we reproduce... I've certainly felt that instinct while ovulating... Its there and may seem animal.... But we are here to learn self control and bridle our passions by letting your spirit guide your mind and bodily actions more. When you don't have the guilt associated with the sex its actually pretty great. Of course the old forbidden fruit thing is fun, too, but ultimately that backfires in one way or another and isn't worth it. Its best to begin relationships as friends, too, and build to the physical rather than the other way around other than how its generally done... But when that dies out...or you have sick kids...(or you're sick) or no time....or just don't feel like it, you know your loved one is still going to be yours and not out catting around. In fact, my husband and I are older and we like to have sex once a year whether we feel like it or not just to keep things lively! (J/K : ) (Yes, UT is Utah : )

Hi Jeanie

There are indeed lots of good reasons to wait, when your not ready for anything it’s dangerous, who’d let their 12 year old drive a car on a freeway for instance. One more interesting statistic, I’m full of them lately aren’t I, was from a study in Queensland some time ago, children who were raised with the abstinence only sex education message started having sex earlier on average than those who were given a full and honest sex education. I agree with you, obviously, that the full picture in an age appropriate way is by far the best and the stats bear that out time and again and from many different countries.

I’ve known people who waited till they were married and people who were early starters and to be honest both approaches have their problems. Obviously there are risks if you start too early, emotional and physical risks but of those who waited till they were married there is one problem that I’ve seen time and again, what if your not compatible? It’s a crude way to put it but “try before you buy” isn’t such a foolish idea IMHO. That way both of you can work out if you really are compatible before you get married. And I’m not just talking about sexual compatibility though that’s part of it but living together will give you a chance to experience day to day life with them and that’s a very different thing to just going out together. That may well be part of why atheist marriages are more successful than fundamentalist christian ones on average. I have a fundamentalist christian friend who’s heading for divorce from his wife for this exact reason, they waited till they were married for sex and to live together. They’re going through counselling now but from what he’s told me that incompatibility is one of the major underlying reasons for their problems.

On the other hand I’ve met up again with a couple of people I went to school with who were early starters and today they have only good things to say about their early years and they are now happily married with teen age kids, good jobs etc and are having a great life. I don’t think either approach is right for everyone. One size fits all answers are usually wrong for many people if not most. We are indeed all individuals.

The mouse studies are interesting, those results surprise me in mice due to their stronger instinct based lives but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find a correlation like that in humans. I can just imagine some of the ladies from sex and the city being bad mothers for exactly this reason though who knows, maybe they’d calm down and be great at it if their motherly instincts kicked in.

(Raped)!!! Ouch sorry Jeanie. Some men are horrible. I’ve heard from far too many of my friends that they have been raped or molested. It’s far too common in our society today. Just recently one of my friends daughters, who’s 13 but looks 18, was attacked in a park on her walk home from school. She did a good job though stuck her fingernails in his eyes and ran off before he could do more than grab her. I hope he learned a lesson from that.

There are guy’s I’ve known to would rather women didn’t talk and just lay back with their legs open but they are a small minority, not small enough in my opinion but that’s another story. Me I much prefer a woman with a brain, it’s one of the things I particularly love about my wife. She’s a very clever lady. She’s beautiful too by the way ?? and obviously I’m not biased at all.

I don’t believe we are here to learn self control though I agree that we should, without it we can’t be the best people or build the happiest society that we could hope for.

In fact, my husband and I are older and we like to have sex once a year whether we feel like it or not just to keep things lively! (J/K : )

LOL!!!

(Yes, UT is Utah : )

You can tell I’m not from around there can’t you?

All the best.

Russell

Your reference indicates that Aldous Huxley was the author of "Confessions of a Professed Atheist" when he was not. The quote is taken from his book "Ends and Means". The real author of the article was Dennis Helming. The article was "Interview with God" and "Confessions of a Professed Atheist" was the heading for the paragraph with the quote. I figured you might want to fix your reference to more correctly indicate where you got it.

Since Aldous Huxley was talking about the rising atheist/humanist philosophy in the 1920's, mentioned nothing about Darwin or Origins, and you, quite obviously, have not read "Ends and Means", what is your reasoning for determining that Huxley's phrase, "philosophy of meaninglessness" equates to "evolution"?
Did he mention evolution in any other part of the book?
Was Aldous Huxley an atheist at the time that he wrote "Ends and Means"?
Was the theme of "Ends and Means" a promotion of humanism or atheism?

here is a quote from page 308 of "Ends and Means":

(emphasis mine)

or page 312:
(emphasis mine)

It sure doesn't look like Aldous Huxley is supporting or promoting the "philosophy of meaninglessness".

I am sure you can find plenty of good quotes from shallow individuals that will easily fit your requirement to relate the theory of evolution to some sort of philosophy of meaningless. This "Aldous Huxley quote" is incorrect in so many ways that it does nothing to support and is actually detrimental to your cause.

On another note: I fail to see how the relationship between Aldous and Thomas is of any worth in this context. Should we assume that you have taken on ALL the beliefs of your grandfather?

OK, well thanks Linear for pointing that out.

I'll have to research this and find the quote directly for myself. I've seen plenty of disinformation, especially on the talk-origins website, and this experience requires me to do my own research.

I'll put this on my "to-do" list.

Initial Findings

I have done some online research and found this website:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/julian_huxley_lie.html

which seems to be well researched, except that they have failed to find the conspiracy behind evolution.

I have posted their excepts from Huxley below. In reading it through the first time, I can see that he has many misconceptions about Christianity. Like many, he simply glumps together historic events and credits Christianity with the horror, a common but easily rebutted (for the logical mind) "mistake"; Ultimately a product of his work in controlled opposition (see below).

I find this quote interesting and true:

"Our conviction that the world is meaningless lend(s) itself very effectively to furthering the ends of erotic or political passion" (p 308)

Yes, I realize Huxley's context here, but the above statement is both familiar in concept, and true, and that, to our own conviction.

He continues:

"...in part to a genuine intellectual error..."

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption." (p 311)

"The philosopher who find no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is not valid reason why her personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves." (p 314)

"For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom;" (p 316)


Putting It All Together

Here is the original mis-cited quote:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

Here is a new compilation:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption." (p 311)

"The philosopher who find no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is not valid reason why her personally should not do as he wants to do..." (p 314)

"For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom;" (p 316)

—Aldous Huxley, "Ends and Means", 1937


An honest question: Is this correct or am I missing something? Tell me what you think would be the proper way to cite this.


To Answer Your Questions



In short, evolution is an implicit subset of the philosophy of meaninglessness. It is the cornerstone. It's impossible to separate the two.

Then, of course, you have Huxley saying this:

"The Victorian passion for respectability was, however, so great that, during the period when they were formulated, neither Positivism nor Darwinism was used as a justification for sexual indulgence." (p 316-317)

This is contradictory to Huxley's own rationale. Huxley was a big fan of stating how people are influenced by their own desires, and Huxley's were—or rather became—clear over time.

Darwinism was the single greatest promotional gimmick for the graduation of the philosophy of meaninglessness. Saying that it's not is like saying:

"The muddy elephant in the middle of the room is not responsible for the muddy elephant footprints on the carpet."

Four factors make me suspicious that Huxley was nothing more than controlled opposition:

(1) His appearance as an intellect combined with his complete lack of integrity in relation to Christian history. A reasonable study would void many of his obviously biased statements about Christianity's effect on history.

(2) His change of position over time. This is a common tactic used to lure others to follow an intellectual path. They say, "Look, he changed his position, and he was smart. You should too."

(3) His internal contradictions.

(4) His attempt to clear Darwinism as a instrument of justification for "sexual indulgence". In light of his other nearby rationale, this is just silly.

Reading more of his writings I can now see that the association of Huxley to grandparents in the original citation is probably just a tactic to lend credibility and "shock value" to the quote. I will want to remove that in order to be intellectually honest.



He mentioned Darwinism (p 317).



As I said earlier, he was probably acting as controlled opposition, much like Rush Limbaugh and Shaun Hannity are today.

This also explains why these books do not appear to be a promotion of humanism or atheism. Actually they are subconsciously, but they look to the casual read not to be. This is a control tactic which is used widely today and has been for centuries.


On A Side Note

If you consider that evolution is a subset of the philosophy of meaninglessness, then it's doubtful that darwinism was not used as justification for sexual indulgence, at least on the subconscious level. Very doubtful. Darwinism is license because it mutually excludes the opposing belief system.

"The Victorian passion for respectability was, however, so great that, during the period when they were formulated, neither Positivism nor Darwinism was used as a justification for sexual indulgence." (p 317)


The Entire Excerpt From The Source Website

ALDOUS HUXLEY REBUTTS THE "PHILOSOPHY OF MEANINGLESSNESS"

"From the world we actually live in, the world that is given by our senses, our intuitions of beauty and goodness, our emotions and impulses, our moods and sentiments, the man of science abstracts a simplified private universe of things possessing only... elements which can be weighed, measured, numbered, or which lend themselves in any other way to mathematical treatment. By using this technique of simplification and abstraction, the scientist has succeeded to an astonishing degree in understanding and dominating the physical environment. The success was intoxicating and, with an illogicality which, in the circmstances, was doubtless pardonable, many scientists and philosophers came to imagine that this useful abstraction from reality was reality itself. Reality as actually experienced contains intuitions of value and significance, contain love, beauty, mystical ecstasy, intimations of godhead. Science did not and still does not possess intellectual instruments with which to deal with thses aspects of reality. Consquently it ignored them and concentrated its attention upon such aspects of the world as it could deal with by mean of arithmetic, geometry and the various branches of higher mathematics. Our conviction that the world is meaningless lend itself very effectively to furthering the ends of erotic or political passion; in part to a genuine intellectual error -- the error of identifying the world of science, a world from which all meaning and value has been deliberately excluded, with ultimate reality.

"[The philosopher, Hume's, erroneous attitude was typical] Hume wrote, 'If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstracts reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact or evidence? No. Commit it then to the flame; for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.' Hume mentions only divinity and school metaphysics; but his argument would apply just as cogently to poetry, music, painting, sculpture and all ethical and religious teaching. Hamlet contains no abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number and no experimental reason concerning evidence; nor does the Hamerklavier Sonata, nor Donatello's David, nor the Tao Te Ching [book of Chinese philosophy and wisdom], nor the Following of Christ. Commit them therefore to the flames: for they can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

"We are living now, not in the delicious intoxication induced by the early successes of science, but in a rather grisly morning-after... The contents of literature, art, music -- even in some measure of divinity and school metaphysics -- are not sophistry and illusion, but simply those elements of experience which scientists chose to leave out of account, for the good reason that they had no intellectual methods for dealing with them. In the arts, in philosophy, in religion, men are trying -- to describe and explain the non-measureable, purely qualitative aspects of reality...[p. 308-310]

"In recent years, many men of science have come to realize that the scientific picture of the world is a partial one -- the product of their special competence in mathematics and their special incompetence to deal systematically with aesthetic and moral values, religous experiences and intuitions of significance. Unhappily, novel ideas become acceptable to the less intelligent members of society only with a very considerable time-lag. Sixty or seventy years ago the majority of scientists believed -- and the belief caused them considerable distress -- that the product of their special incompetence was identical with reality as a whole. Today this belief has begun to give way, in scientific circles, to a different and obviously truer conception of the relation between science and total experience. The masses on the contrary, have just reached the point where the ancestors of today's scientists were standing two generations back. They are convinced that the scientific picture of an arbitrary abstraction from reality is a picture of reality as a whole and that therefore the world is without meaning or value. But nobody likes living in such a world. To satisfy their hunger for meaning and value, they turn to such doctrines as nationalism, fascism and revolutionary communism. Philosophically and scientifically, these doctrines are absurd; but for the masses in every community, they have this great merit: they atytribute the meaning and value that have been taken away from the world as a whole to the particular part of the world in which the believers happen to be living.

"These last considerations raise an important question, which must now be considered in some detail. Does the world as a whole possess the value and meaning that we constatntly attribute to certain parts of it (such as human beings and their works); and, if so, what is thenature of that value and meaning? This is a question which, a few years ago, I should not even have posed. For, like so many of my contemporaries, I took it for granted that there was no meaning. This was partly due to the fact that I shared the common belief that the scientific picture of an abstraction from reality was a true picture of reality as a whole; partly also to other, non-intellectual reasons. I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.

"Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless." [p. 311-312]

"No philosophy is completely disinterested. The pure love of truth is always mingle to some extent with the need, consciously or unconsciously felt by even the noblest and the most intelligent philosophers, to justify a given form of personal or social behavior, to rationalize the traditional prejudices of a given class or community. The philosopher who finds meaning in the world is concerned, not only to elucidate that meaning, but also to prove that is it most clearly expressed in some established religion, some accepted code of morals. The philosopher who find no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is not valid reason why her personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. The voluntary, as opposed to the intellectual, reasons for holding the doctrines of materialism, for examples, may be predominantly erotic, as they were in the case of Lamettrie (see his lyrical account of the pleasures of the bed in La Volupte and at the end of L'Homme Machine ['The Human Machine,' a work of materialist philosophy]), or predominantly political, as they were in the case of Karl Marx. The desire to justify a particular form of political organization and, in some cases, of a personal will to power has played an equally large part in the formulation of philosophies postulating the existence of meaning in the world. Christian philosophers have found no difficulty in justifying imperialism, war, the capitalistic system, the use of torture, the censorship of the press, and ecclesiastical tyrannies of every sort from the tyranny of Rome to the tyrannies of [Calvin's] Geneva and [Puritan] New England. In all cases they have shown that the meaning of the world was such as to be compatibel with, or actually most completely expressed by, the iniquities I have mentioned above -- iniquities which happened, of course, to serve the personal or sectarian interests of the philosophiers concerned. In due course, these arose philosophers who denied not only the right of Christian special pleaders to justify iniquity by an appeal to the meaning of the world, but even their right to find any such meaning whatsoever. In the circumstances, the fact was not surprising. One unscrupulous distortion of the truth tends to beget other and opposite distortions. Passions may be satisfied in the process; but the disinterested love of knowledge suffers eclipse. [p. 314-316]

"For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was an admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever... The men of the new Enlightenment, which occurred in the middle years of the nineteenth century, once again used meaninglessness as a weapon against the [conservative] reactionaries. The Victorian passion for respectability was, however, so great that, during the period when they were formulated, neither Positivism nor Darwinism was used as a justification for sexual indulgence. [p. 316-317]

ALDOUS HUXLEY'S WARNING AGAINST SEXUAL ADDICTION
"It is only when it takes the form of physical addiction that sex is evil. It is also evil when it manifests itself as a way of satisfying the lust for power or the climber's craving for position and social distinction." [p. 358]

ALDOUS HUXLEY ON FAITH AND ETHICS
"There are some... who believe that no desirable 'change of heart' can be brought about without supernatural aid. There must be, they say, a return to religion. (Unhappily, they cannot agree on the religion to which the return should be made.)" [p. 2]

"In practice, Christianity, like Hinduism or Buddhism, is not one religion, but several religions, adapted to the needs of different types of human beings. A Christian church in Southern Spain, or Mexico, or Sicily is singularly like a Hindu temple. The eye is delighted by the same gaudy colors, the same tripe-like decorations, the same gesticulating statues; the nose inhales the same intoxicating smells; the ear and, along with it, the understanding, are lulled by the drone of the same incomprehensible incantations [in the old Catholic Latin mass tradition], roused by the same loud, impressive music.

"At the other end of the scale, consider the chapel of a Cistercian monastery and the meditation hall of a community of Zen Buddhists. They are equally bare; aids to devotion (in other words fetters holding back the soul from enlightenment) are conspicuously absent from either building. Here are two distinct religions for two distinct kinds of human beings." [p. 262-263]

"In Christianity bhakti [or, loving devotion] towards a personal being has always been the most popular form of religious practice. Up to the time of the [Catholic] Counter-Reformation, however, the way of knowledge ("mystical knowledge" as it is called in Chrstian language) was accorded an honorable place beside the way of devotion. From the middle of the sixteenth century onwards the way of knowledge came to be neglected and even condemned. We are told by Dom John Chapman that "Mercurian, who was general of the society (of Jesus) from 1573 to 1580, forbade the use of the works of Tauler, Ruysbroek, Suso, Harphius, St. Gertrude, and St. Mechtilde." Every effort was made by the [Catholic] Counter-Reformers to heighten the worshipper's devotion to a personal divinity. The literary content of Baroque art is hysterical, almost epileptic, in the violence of its emotionality. It even becomes necessary to call in physiology as an aid to feeling. The ecstasies of the saints are represented by seventeenth-century artists as being frankly sexual. Seventeenth-century drapery writhes like so much tripe. In the equivocal personage of Margaret Mary Alacocque, seventeenth-century piety pours over a bleeding and palpitating heart. From this orgy of emotionalism and sensationalism Catholic Christianity seems never completely to have recovered." [p. 281-282]

"First Shakespeare sonnets seem meaningless; first Bach fugues, a bore; first differential equations, sheer torture. But training changes the nature of our spiritual experiences. In due course, contact with an obscurely beautiful poem, an elaborate piece of [musical] counterpoint or of mathematical reasoning, causes us to feel direct intuitions of beauty and significance. It is the same in the moral world. A man who has trained himself in goodness come to have certain direct intuitions about character, about the relations between human beings, about his own position in the world -- intuitions that are quite different from the intuitions of the average sensual man... [p. 333]

"The ideal of non-attachment has been formulated and systematically preached again and again in the course of the last three thousand years. We find it (along with everything else) in Hinduism. It is at the very heart of the teachings of the Buddha. For Chinese readers the doctrine is formulated by Lao Tsu. A little later, in Greece, the ideal of non-attachment is proclaimed, albeit with a certain, pharisaic priggishness, by the Stoics. The Gospel of Jesus is essentially a gospel of non-attachment to "the things of this world," and of attachment to God. Whatever may have been the aberrations of organized Christianity -- and they range from extravagant asceticism to the most brutally cynical forms of realpolitik -- there has been no lack of Christian philosophers to reaffirm the ideal of non-attachment. Here is John Tauler, for example, telling us that 'freedom is complete purity and detachment which seeketh the Eternal...' Here is the author of "The Imitation of Christ," who bids us 'pass through many cares as though without care; not after the manner of a sluggard, but by a certain prerogative of a free mind, which does not cleave with inordinate affection to any creature.'" [p. 5, 6]

"...as knowledge, sensibility and non-attachment increase, the contents of the judgments of value passed even by men belonging to dissimilar cultures, tend to approximate. The ethical doctrines taught in the Tao Te Ching, by Buddha and his followers, in the Sermon on the Mount, and by the best of the Christian saints, are not dissimilar." [p. 327]

ALDOUS HUXLEY ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE WORST ASPECTS OF THE BIBLE ON THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY
"Examples of reversion to barbarism through mere ignorance are unhappily abundant in the history of Christianity. The early Christians made the enormous mistake of burdening themselves with the Old Testament, which contains, along with much fine poetry and sound morality the history of the cruelties and treacheries of a Bronze-Age people, fighting for a place in the sun under the protection of its anthropomorphic tribal deity... Those whom it suited to be ignorant and, along with them, the innocent and uneducated could find in this treasure-house of barbarous stupidity justifications for every crime and folly. Texts to justify such abominations as religious wars, the persecution of heretics... could be found in the sacred books and were in fact used again and again throughout the whole history of the Christian Church. [p. 328]

"In this remarkable compendium of Bronze-Age literature, God is personal to the point of being almost sub-human. Too often the believer has felt justified in giving way to his worst passions by the reflection that, in doing so, he is basing his conduct on that of a God who feels jealousy and hatred... and behaves in general like a particularly ferocious oriental tyrant. The frequency with which men have identified the prompting of their own passions with the voice of an all too personal God is really appalling." [p. 276-277]

"According to his very inadequate biographers, Jesus of Nazareth was never preoccupied with philosophy, art, music, or science and ignored almost completely the problems of politics, economics and sexual relations. It is also recorded of him that he blasted a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, that he scourged the shopkeepers in the temple precincts and caused a herd of swine to drown. Scrupulous devotion to and imitation of the person of Jesus have resulted only too frequently in a fatal tendency, on the part of earnest Christians, to despise artistic creation and philosophic thought; to disparage the inquiring intellect, to evade all long-range, large-scale problems of politics and economics, and to believe themsevles justified in displaying anger, or as they would doubtless prefer to call it, 'righteous indignation.'" [p. 275-276]

Hi Jeanie

Jeanie: We also have our kids wait to date till they are 16. They generally handle "situations" much better at that point and statistics on that bear out that percentages of those who dated earlier than 16 were sexually active much earlier on than those who waited. It sounds obvious the way I put it (obviously no one is going to be sexually active if not even dating but not what I mean. Kind of put it backwards, but you get the point???).

They have contact with the opposite sex through school and they have plenty of opportunities to experiment before they are 16 even with that restriction but you can only do so much. I was listening to the radio today and they had an article on the uses kids are putting their mobile phones too. Of those surveyed, it was a reporter doing a random sample not anything scientific, around 90% either had porn on their phones or had had in the past. Much of that was movies taken with phones by other kids. Many of these kids were around 16 though some were younger. They were shocked when the reporter pointed out that under Australian law they have technically committed the offense of child pornography if they film themselves having sex before they turn 18 and one man was recently charged with exactly that for a movie he had taken of him and his then girlfriend having sex when they were just 15. Is it such a different world out there now or was I just very sheltered?

All the best.

Russell

I did shelter my kids. I homeschooled them. My oldest from 3rd through 9th. She got offended in 2nd grade when some kids were acting out some adult movies they'd seen and was struggling in a few other areas. (Not academic). My youngest was going into Kindergarten then and I just didn't want to send my baby... I'd gone to a mommy & me preschool with her at 3 & 4 and when it came time for K she said, "you can come with me, mom." I loved having them home. My youngest was a natural reader and very independent. She stayed home through 5th and then went to elementary in Alaska in 6th grade. She got straight A's and started playing cello. Her report cards always said what a positive influence she was. She was elected the secretary of her grade and got a Presidents award for straight A's along with the Principals award because she was such a good example and always serving in some way. My oldest graduated with honors - I sent her to 10th grade once we moved here to Georgia. She didn't date much or any and went to school with "virgin lips" as they called it. That is actually valued at an LDS university, though. She had good friends (male) but just kept it that level. In college, she was ready and dated....Got married at barely 20. She's mature. My younger has kissed already. (Did at 4 technically : ) But she has a very strong conscience and they have it drummed in their heads from us and church. (She broke up with the boy who she kissed cause she was afraid she would be tempted to start making out. He was older and more ready to get serious than she was, too). The youth program is quite supportive and they have lots of guidance. I know with some kids (mostly guys) porn is still an issue even within the church. Its so readily available. They are encouraged to confess and repent if they do have those issues, though. The goal is to remain worthy of a temple marriage...but be morally clean regardless. It's always easier to stay clean than have to repent, but some seem to need to learn the harder way, too. There is a way back, but some lines once crossed do make it a lot more difficult. I agree, though, that on a whole kids are losing their innocence a whole lot younger. I think its due to the media, personally. And social mores have gone down the tubes. So they don't even need contact through schools.... I use to check out the music videos to stay up on what was going on and didn't like Brittney Spears from the start. (She was never innocent like originally claimed which, to me, was all the more dangerous for little girls to want to be like her). Anyway, though, parents have to be very proactive these days cause there is a lot of garbage out there. With the crap I'd been through, I was on it... BUT I am not a controlling person and was not overbearingly strict, either. More just supportive and there to talk to. The lines of communication with us have been very open.

Not saying all need to homeschool, etc., but with my kids I'm glad I did it. They've turned out well and are making good choices and, because their lives didn't, at first at least, revolve around their social lives, they are more themselves and secure. (They always had full social lives through church and neighborhood kids. I was very aware of those needs and the need for balance). I think you have to be open with kids, too, about issues. My girls are not prudes. Neither hang out with strictly "good girls." Or I should say, they aren't only friends with or nice to good girls. My oldest was one that the other girls turned to when they'd been hurt or whatever from their bad choices, but she never made them feel judged. She is a loving little thing. Both of them are. I've been lucky with my two.... I do know people who have kids who even when they did homeschool and have been raised in the church have had issues and messed up every way possible, but even in those cases I could see where the parents made mistakes in some ways. (Maybe just weren't aware or overly preoccupied with their own lives at the time or whatever. I have a couple of examples in mind). Kids, too, are individuals and have to make their own mistakes. I've been more stressed with raising my "son." (Husband : ) His mama wasn't there for him and I've had to be the one to go back and help repair some damage... He's helped me that way, too, though.

Hope I haven't seemed overly proud of my kids or myself. I completely dedicated myself to raising them, though, with my husbands support and he was a great daddy. We are reaping those benefits now. At the same time, though, now I'm heading into an empty nest and was out of the work force for a couple of decades so am starting over that way. Time for me again, but I am still hanging out with kids : ) I get a lot of satisfaction working with them and when I actually get to teach, love it. (A lot of times you either don't know the material or aren't expected to or are in a supporting position, but today I was able to help in Math and it felt really good : )

Wow - kind of hyper...sorry about that. Didn't mean to be so wordy.

Hi Jeanie

LOL you better not get me started on my children, I’ve got 5 of them so it could take a very long time. No there’s no reason for you not to be proud of them, if they are doing well and are happy you’ve done a good job IMHO. Mine range from 7 to 15 so no empty nest on the near horizon. They all seem perfectly content to stay with us for the rest of their lives at this stage. We have a long way to go but at this stage I think they are all going to turn out to be happy, intelligent, well balanced people and that’s what I want for them. I don’t care if they make millions or minimum wage so long as they are happy doing what they are doing. The oldest is heading for a career as a Ranger for the National Parks service or something along that line which is an ideal job for him but doesn’t pay well. Knowing the sort of person he is it will be a brilliant career for him. The rest have no idea what they what to do but they’ve got plenty of time to work that out. The next oldest is 9 so there’s no rush. No bad decisions among them so far, well nothing more than wasting too much money on lollies or things like that.

Above all else they seem to be happy, secure, well balanced people and at this age that’s the most important thing.

All the best

Russell

Gosh, R2, you sound like a great daddy! FIVE KIDS!! You would make a great Mormon! My SIL has 5 girls who are all married and have kids now. THey're a blessing. I wanted more...actually had a miscarriage 2001 right before 9/11 happened.

Good on ya!!!

Hi Jeanie

LOL I’m not sure having 5 makes me a good dad though I do try to be. Plenty of really bad dad’s have lots of kids. We would have had one more but life had other plans, we’re a bit old now anyway so 5’s our lot. It’s a mad house around here at times and you should see the tribe of us heading out camping our outback touring with the 4x4 and the camper, it’s quite a circus. Just need to get them to pull a little more of their own weight. Oh well, the challenges of parenthood.

I don’t think I’d make a good Mormon, I have a habit of speaking my mind about things that make no sense to me. That doesn’t seem to fit too well into most church groups. They don’t like hecklers even polite ones especially during the sermons when I’m most likely to find fault. One of my friends invited me to an Alpha course he was running for his church but thought better of it when I read the program and asked him a few difficult questions about how it was framed. For example I pointed out that day one was an exploration of the question “Is there is a god” and day two was to discuss what he was like. I just suggested that that was kind of presumptuous and that once we’d worked out there was no god that maybe day two could be better spent swimming down the beach or getting out in the bush enjoying all that nature has to offer, something productive like that.

Did I mention that I’m trouble?

All the best

Russell

Nothing wrong with questioning R2. I just think with spiritual matters you need to do it in a spiritual way....(which means prayer). You have to be open. I know you use to be Christian. It would be interesting to find out what happened. I almost gave up on religion. Probably would have if it weren't for the church.... I see problems. And there were a lot of unanswered questions before. Things didn't always make sense. I see problems in my own church, or with the people, at least. We are all human. The Gospel is perfect but we aren't. But if someone has a problem with the plan of salvation, the Gospel itself, they don't understand it or want to live it....plain and simple. I think Russ may have something with the anger thing with atheists. But you can't pigeon hold or generalize with atheists any more than anyone else. Did you ever really believe, though?

Hi Jeanie

I used to pray all the time but I came to realize that I was talking to myself so I stopped. Sounds trite but it’s true. They say talking to yourself is a sign of madness unless you claim to be praying.

If you really believed that saying few really cool words over a slice of week old Pizza would turn it into the body of Elvis I think most people would agree that you’re crazy but if you believe pretty much the same thing on a Sunday in church you’re probably just catholic. It’s all about perspective.

The short answer to what happened to my faith was that I was into science, it was really cool that it could show us so much about the world and that it was based on evidence that anyone could examine for themselves if they wanted to. I love stretching my mind, getting into and trying to understand complex and difficult fields of science, trying to nut out what makes the world tick, it’s just the most amazing buzz. I also read the bible, cover to cover (twice so far) and as I did this I started to notice more and more that the bible contradicted things that I had really strong evidence to believe were true. I asked myself how could this be, I asked other people, no one could come up with good answers. I got so many answers like Russ T’s avoidance or blathering but nothing based on good reason and evidence to show why the bible should be believed when it contradicted so much really solid evidence. I couldn’t accept the idea that it was just allegory, that the bible was carrying an important message even if the details were wrong so I lost my faith. I’ve been an atheist since.

Did I really believe is a question I get asked a lot and the simple answer is yes, with all my heart I believed the bible was The Truth, that God was real and that he cared deeply about me etc.

Anger is a very common answer to atheism and I’ve met angry atheists though anger seems far more prevalent among religious people at least on these discussion boards. I think Margret Thatcher of all people said it best. “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” I think it’s more general than just resorting to Add Homonym but that’s the most obvious part of it, when people here ridicule my ideas without answering them with evidence, when they appeal to other people’s speeches and video’s without putting their own thoughts into the discussion then I realize that they don’t really have a well founded position to stand on, they are grasping at straws to try to support a failed position and the anger, the derision, the ridicule etc is all just part of that desperation.

Is it laziness that prevents some people from getting into the evidence in any depth and formulating their own ideas? Is it ignorance that has them presenting the same arguments over and over even when the flaws in them have been pointed out and what is the source of the anger and derision we see in posts here?

All the best Jeanie

Russell

You are lying about the nature of my responses. That is not allowed here.

I will tell you again, but this may be the last time.

The Bible does not contradict solid evidence. The fact is, much of the information that you have been fed as being "solid" evidence has been contrived in one manner or another.

I spent most of my life examining things more deeply than most, and as you look into a single matter of science, you surprisingly-often find a stack of lies, expertly contrived in just such a way to control your conclusions, and this, to the profit of somebody somewhere.

From the movies made about evolution to the "science" behind it, it is all based on huge, ridiculous assumptions and even much outright fraud.

This is not true of all science, but it is true of nearly everything I've delved into regarding evolution.

The denial of informational conspiracies in the information age is the faith of the fantastically naive.

To a person unversed in conspiracy study, this does not make sense, but to a person educated in this area, the world has become as predictable as any good science could make it.

The short of it all is this:

The Bible is the last large remaining threat to a global government. For this reason, the merchants of the Earth (bankers) have been attempting to destroy its credibility with great fury for the past century. They are having success, not because their arguments are true, but because:

(1) They control media, and

(2) People tend to believe what they hear in media.

To truly understand the world today, you must be willing to read and research information that contradicts your preferred religion. Not to is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

People have a tendency to covet. Coveting blinds people to the truth by coloring their perception. You are certainly not immune.

I do not debunk evolution because I am a Christian. I debunk it because it makes science look bad, and I love science.

I am a Christian for the following reasons:

(1) Bible prophecy
(2) Bible gematria
(3) Other Bible evidence, such as archeology

I have no emotional agenda when studying the Bible. My only interest is truth.

If I found evidence that the Bible was wrong (which I have many times), I would examine it. When I have, I have found the challenges to the Bible to be in error every time (so far).

I may be at an advantage over many because I build things, and have for a long time.

Particularly when you consider complex things, like embedded systems (small standalone computer systems) like the ones I used to design and build.

Making all of the parts of a complex system come together and work is a hard thing to do.

Most people have no idea of the number of small details that must be addressed when doing such things. People today often have the "hit the television on the side to fix it" mentality. Or they have the "just put it in the microwave" mentality.

In reality, things are much more complex than that, and as I have well learned, obscuring and ignoring complexity is something evolutionists do constantly. This is what I have found in my studies and is not intellectually honest.

So again I say, there is big difference between reading the Bible twice and "getting it"; A big difference.

Fortunately, and thank God for it, I got it, and now I share it out of love for others. Whether that love is gentle or tough, it is the kind of love the demands intellectual integrity and tells the truth.

So for this reason I say:

When you are asked to put a tattoo on your hand for the purpose of conducting commerce, remember this conversation.


Evolution is a social control. If you believe it, you are controlled.


"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."

—Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

R2, I am not lazy. Well, maybe a little, : ) but I just have a stopping point. While I don't agree with everything Russ says, (he is not a prophet, is very human and does not have ALL facts straight : ) I do agree there is a lot of untruth out there. satan is the father of lies and mixes truths with untruths to make them more palatable. Our leaders have warned that the greatest dangers of our day would be sexual immorality, praise of the world and false educational ideas. You've taken a whole opposite stance than your prior one. I do not agree with what you disagree with on the Bible.

But Russ T, if you are not a young earth creationist, (which I'm not either - not a pure one) what are you? What do YOU believe or think about dinosaurs? One of our leaders put them on the earth the same time as people (which began with Adam and Eve) so this is intriguing. As far as the creation, who knows how long that took. But of course I don't think people had to evolve into people either. Other than that, sure - things evolve, but I don't think to the extent its taken.

R2, you seem to have done some wide swinging with your belief and then complete lack of belief. I can understand someone not growing up that way, but generally when you turn away from light the darkness is greater. You do seem to still have Christian values. I have to wonder honestly if its something you did that was out of harmony (with living the Gospel) or maybe you felt like God didn't do something for you or something more along those lines. Otherwise I can't imagine your faith was ever really that strong.

I did become LDS, though, because I couldn't understand how there could be so many different interpretations of the Bible. You do need inspiration and in some cases, guidance and a history on the context (and sometimes to know the original text) to truly understand it.

H Russ T

You are lying about the nature of my responses. That is not allowed here.

I will tell you again, but this may be the last time.

Good one Russ, threats, especially veiled ones, work well with me!! LOL. Now don’t you think you might be better to rebut what I have said, if it is false, with evidence to the contrary. I can find any number of unstubstantive posts from you which basically say “this is the truth and anyone who doesn’t agree is foolish” and “I know this is the truth because I’ve done my homework” or there are innumerable “Hey watch this video” posts but I struggle to remember one substantive post from you Russ T. I of course stand to be corrected if you can. Maybe we need to do a count back and look at your posts for substance as opposed to blather to settle this question.

The Bible does not contradict solid evidence. The fact is, much of the information that you have been fed as being "solid" evidence has been contrived in one manner or another.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that point, there is so much solid evidence that clearly shows that the creation order given in genesis (as just one of so many examples of error in the bible) is wrong, it is wrong in the order of creation of the universe and the solar system and it is wrong in the order given for the creation of life on this planet. Need I go on?

I spent most of my life examining things more deeply than most, and as you look into a single matter of science, you surprisingly-often find a stack of lies, expertly contrived in just such a way to control your conclusions, and this, to the profit of somebody somewhere.

Yes I know I know, you’ve done your homework. You conclusions contradict the findings of the vast majority of the best minds on this planet but you’ve done your homework so they must all be wrong. You are sounding paranoid again Russ T. Not wishing to insult you but if you were a relative of mine I’d be counselling you to seek help at this point.

From the movies made about evolution to the "science" behind it, it is all based on huge, ridiculous assumptions and even much outright fraud.

And where is the ridiculous assumption? You’ve pointed out several of the flaws you see in ToE but they all, without exception, turn out to be problems with Rustolution which I have to agree is ridiculous. Are you aware of even one real flaw in the real theory of evolution? Just one?

The denial of informational conspiracies in the information age is the faith of the fantastically naive.

Oh no don’t get me wrong I’m sure there are conspiracies all over the place but I doubt there are any as all encompassing and deeply rooted as you are suggesting here, lets face it keeping such a conspiracy, given that it includes literally hundreds of thousands of people, quiet for what is it 150 years so far if not more seems improbable in the extreme. The US government has failed dismally to keep far smaller secrets from escaping so the evidence is not on your side.






I do not debunk evolution because I am a Christian. I debunk it because it makes science look bad, and I love science.

I am a Christian for the following reasons:

(1) Bible prophecy

Yes interesting point, prophecy would be good evidence for the veracity of the bible but it has to do a number of things to be acceptable evidence to a rational person. And it does not.
It has to be demonstrably written before the event prophecied
It has to be clear, explicit and precise.
It has to be fulfilled outside the book that made the prediction
Are you aware of any bible prophecy that is all of these things?

(2) Bible gematria

(3) Other Bible evidence, such as archeology

Archaeology proves that the bible is a product of it’s time which is hardly in dispute it does not support the existence of a god/man named jesus. You could find exactly the same sort of supporting evidence for any number of historical and contemporary works of fiction.



I have no emotional agenda when studying the Bible. My only interest is truth.

I don’t know you from a bar of soap Russ T but I very much doubt this. I would suggest that you are deluding yourself here much as you continually accuse me of doing.

I may be at an advantage over many because I build things, and have for a long time.

Particularly when you consider complex things, like embedded systems (small standalone computer systems) like the ones I used to design and build.

Making all of the parts of a complex system come together and work is a hard thing to do.

Complex embedded systems are a great example of the fallacy of the impossibility of ToE to create complexity because we can today use evolutionary algorithms to program such systems and to create code that humans could not have written using features of the chips that were not designed to be there and were not known off till the evolutionary algorithms discovered them. You see ToE works in biological systems (we’ve observed this) and in software/hardware of our design.

I’m not sure your experience in this area helps you understand this unless you have worked on such algorithms, if you have not you were working in an environment that purposefully excluded the variation of mutation and had no equivalent of natural selection. Without these you are like a plumber who says that he understands heart surgery because it’s all about tubes and fluids.





So again I say, there is big difference between reading the Bible twice and "getting it"; A big difference.

LOL of course there is but then there is a very common problem with people who believe the bible, few read it and those who do virtually all have an agenda. Mine was that I wanted to understand it, to gain more from it on my own that I was getting from my classes, what I found was that my preconceptions about the bible were wrong, it was not god’s truth but a flawed work of man. That was the last thing I expected when I started studying it but that is that I found.




When you are asked to put a tattoo on your hand for the purpose of conducting commerce, remember this conversation.

LOL yes I’ve heard that one too. What can I say Russ T but from this side of the fence that makes you sound really paranoid if not actually delusional. No offence intended.


Evolution is a social control. If you believe it, you are controlled.

Another Russ T mantra but again, can you prove it? Can you provide any real evidence for this statement?

In Reason

Russell

Sorry no time to proof it, they just called my flight. Heading from the tropics into the red center of this country for a few days. CYA soon.

Nothing veiled about it.



Evolution is false, and that is self evident.

The only reason there is so much "evidence" supporting it is because of a phenomenon called "overcompensation".

Overcompensation is a condition that exists when a lie must be purportrated to facilitate an agenda. The party benefiting from the agenda thrusts and repeats the manufactures "evidence" to suit their needs.

Your position is no different than if someone came to me and said that horses could fly. The fact that they can't fly is self evidence.

Evolution is so ridiculous that those who believe it are so deluded with their own agenda, that they are blinded in their ability to see plain truths.

Again I say, when you are asked to put a tattoo on your hand in order to conduct commerce, think of me



You are again painting falsehoods to your own agenda.



I have not seen your evidence to this effect.



Again, I tell you, this is a common occurrence in history. See:

(1) The tomato effect
(2) The emperor's new clothes
(3) Amalgam fillings
(4) Mercury in vaccines
(5) FDA and aspartame
(6) And countless more examples...

Yes, the "best" minds that you still put your trust in brought us these things, and much more.

If I had been listening to all of the educated people, I would have never had my amalgam fillings removed and I'd be dead now.



You are confusing fear and wisdom.

I'm not afraid. I simply know more about the nature of lies and deceit than you do. You are deceived in believing that rocks turn into highly complex, self-replicating, symmetrical machines over time. And because you are deceived, you are controlled.

If you fail to see the connection between the evolution myth and the globalists agenda, I would suggest you study it.



You are again being dishonest about the true nature of the nature of the evolution myth. I've stated my point clearly enough previously.



Then you are in for some big surprises.

Again, when you get that invisible "commerce" tattoo, just think about me



If you had ever seriously studied conspiracies, you would understand the "the lie is different at each level" concept of large-scale corruption.

Again, if you want to understand, study.



You underestimate your master as you overestimate yourself.

Again, study and you will learn about the value of concession in selling a lie.



No, we haven't observed this. You've been sold the idea that we've observed this, but when you cut through the assumptions and deceit, you will find (if you look) that we haven't.



Not true, because the concept is applicable. The concept I was demonstrating is about complexity when combined with fragility.

In short, the math demonstrates that if evolution occurred, there would be a much different picture of life here, and the remains of the past would be far different as well.

This article demonstrates it well:
http://urlbam.com/ha/y



Huxley is more honest than you:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

—Aldous Huxley



No, actually, I take it very seriously. It happens to be Bible prophecy.

Offense taken.



Evolution is a social control. If you believe it, you are controlled.


You have misrepresented me, and my belief system, and presented veiled name-calling in the color of intellect.

I have no tolerance for people to refer to conspiratorialists as paranoid. It is nothing more then a character assassination through false association.

This is a better demonstration of this concept:
http://urlbam.com/ha/Nzzz

You have also continually misrepresented evolution, and are playing the game of redefinition that is nothing more then an intellectual retreat through historical revisionism:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M000Z


I have no more tolerance for people who are intellectually dishonest. You'll have to go.