Evolution != Atheism (re: the Rejection of Theism in Evolution)

quote:

---

Proof: If Christians understood and followed the Word of God perfectly everywhere, even though we would still be hated (Christ was and He was perfect), non-Christians would not be justified in their hate.

---

Do you not even entertain the idea that christians are hated for their moral hypocrisy, and their violent self-rightousness?Christianity has been one of the most hateful engines of destruction, despair and slaughter across the globe, and THAT is why it is hated.

quote:

---

it is not the religion that made thouse who belived in that act violently... in my opinion he ALL have the potential to do that just because your christain doesn't mean your violent... usually christians are violent because they try and convert people, if they do not convert then they get rid of them. We all have the potential to do that because it threatens our way of existance to We react triggering a violent response. (MY OPINION)

---

Well I agree religion does not reach into your head and make you a murderer. But religion allows the Other to be, well, "demonised". Thus we see Rumsfeld and Bush talking about "evildoers", using overtly religious language to dehumanise Iraqi's and make killing them seem virtuous. And this is exactly how christinaity was uysing during the British Empire. Christianity is a hated religion becuase of the destruction it called for, justified, and turned a blind eye to, while praising the butchers as godly men.

In their answering skeptics section:

quote:

---

Bible Code Digest's Use of "Statistical Significance" is Invalid and Misleading

​

Here the skeptics would be resorting to a narrow technicality that they are trying to incorrectly generalize to all situations. It's more than a bit like a crafty lawyer who gets a hardened criminal off the hook by using a legal technicality. Everyone knows the guy is guilty, but he gets let off anyway.

​

So what kind of technicality are we talking about? Because we have made a few simplifying assumptions, it is true that the probability we have calculated is not exact. What they won't tell you, however, is that the probability doesn't need to be exact, because all we really need to know is whether the cluster is statistically significant. If your standard of significance is odds of 1 in 1,000 and you can show that something has odds less than 1 in 1,000,000, you have shown its significance. It doesn't matter that we can't tell you exactly what the odds are as long as we can show that the odds are far less than 1 in 1,000,000.

---

Ahuh.So, this is like a basic error of legal procedure? Then its invalid, isn't it? Making some emotional appeal to supercedding the law is irrleevant and outright manipulatory.