somehow copying this out of the other blog makes it real hard to correct. It's hard to read because it wont post the way I sperate the words. But the bold parts and the white font in blue boxes are my interjections. The bold is what I said on their blog in response to them and the blue boxes are what I'm saying here to interject retrospective.
Metacrock said... - Through Europe the role of religion in the rise of modern secular liberal states is coming to be re-evaluated. Many historians are finding now that religion always played a more vital role than previously thought. Here'sa quote from a new ground breaking book:
Religion, Class Coalitions, and Welfare States Series: Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics Edited by Kees van Kersbergen Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam Philip Manow Universität Konstanz, Germany
• Radical revision of established knowledge in comparative welfare state studies based on a combination of country case studies and comparative accounts
• Introduces a new perspective on why and how religion shaped modern social protection systems and gives a new comparative account of the formation of different welfare state regimes
• Systematic inquiry into the role of the state–church conflict for social policy in advanced industrial societies Contents
1. Religion and the Western welfare state: the theoretical context Philip Manow and Kees van Kersbergen;
2. Western European party systems and the religious cleavage Thomas Ertman;
3. The religious foundations of work-family policies in Western Europe Kimberly J. Morgan;
4. Italy: a Christian democratic or clientist welfare state? Julia Lynch;
5. Religion and the welfare state in the Netherlands Kees van Kersbergen;
6. A conservative welfare state regime without Christian Democracy? The French Etat-providence, 1880–1960 Philip Manow and Bruno Palier;
7. Religion and the consolidation of the Swiss welfare state, 1848–1945 Herbert Obinger;
8. The church as nation? The role of religion in the development of the Swedish welfare state Karen M. Anderson;
9. The religious factor in US welfare state politics Jill Quadagno and Deanna Rohlinger;
10. Religious social doctrines and poor relief: a different causal pathway Sigrun Kahl. Contributors (contributors include:Philip Manow, Kees van Kersbergen, Thomas Ertman, Kimberly J. Morgan, Julia Lynch, Bruno Palier, Herbert Obinger, Karen M. Anderson, Jill Quadagno, Deanna Rohlinger, Sigrun Kahl).
Anthony said... - Metacrock, first, most of what you've written here is a "crock!" Secondly, the topic of the blog is natural theology, how has anything you have written related? Can we get back to the subject at hand? On a side note (but related) I just got a copy of Alister McGrath's book "A Fine-Turned Universe" and will be adding it to my collection of books on natural theology. I hope to get around to reading it sometime this year.
- Gandolf said...
- Metacrock said... "Wouldn't someone out there think "gee, are you a dentist?" Look out Metacrock you`ll go getting yourself so worked up, your dentures will fall out and then you`ll be left trying to gum all us nasty non believers into shape. Naturally someone might have good reason! to wonder if somebodys actually a dentist,dentists tend to mostly all follow some (common scientific teachings) with regards to research done into the practice of dentistry.They follow procedures that have been proved to work. It makes a very big difference if a dentist is actually qualified. This has not got much in common with matters of faith though.Faith is not scientific.Somebodies guess is about as good as anybody elses guess.A qualified theologian, is just somebody thats been taught to become skilled in reciting a certain type of dogma. There is no reason to have any trust of the faithful,their attempt at "faith science" shows its kinda useless.They all end up willy nilly with all manner of ideas,and yet nothing much that can ever be shown as being conclusive. Meaning there is far much more very valid reasons to double question and not trust the ideas of faithful folks,than one would ever likely have reason to question or not trust many qualified dentist.
- Russ said...
- J.L. Hinman, Joe, JL, Metacrock, You obviously have some sort of cognitive defect. You would be better understood if you use a spell checker. You say, (Meta) I know faar more than you do and moer than you ever will I am much muc much more hintellectual than you ever thought of bieng. Today's intellectuals can and do use spell checkers. Cognitively or perceptually handicapped intellectuals employ such tools as a matter of course to decrease the likelihood that they might be misunderstood. Clearly, you don't care if you communicate well. Meat: That's all they do when you back them to the wall and they can't answer your argument bring out the spelling issue! If these guys were really intelligent, if they really had the great intellectual capacity they loved kid themselves into thinking they do they would know that spelling is not about intelligence! but they are quite stupid, so they think it is about intelligence. You're an apologist for your version of a Christian god, but make no effort to make your message clear. You are fortunate that your god does not exist, since you are an appallingly bad emissary. Just general bad mouthing, doesn't even make logical sense. Undoubtedly, many of the heroes from your Bible's hit parade shared your lack of concern concerning being understood. For example, your version of a Christian god simply commands Believe in me or burn forever! Like you, your version of a god fails to communicate adequately, yet, like you, it insists on being respected. Like you it screams and throws tantrums and threatens, rather than facilitating communication through evidence. That your god does not exist becomes obvious when we consider that it has no action in the world and those who represent it, you for instance, are little more than buffoons and jesters, falling and screeching over one another to proclaim to us all what their version god told them in private. The rest of us don't get to hear what they say their god told them, yet we're supposed to accept that it applies to each of us, even when what they say is observably wrong. No extant god wanting its message to be brought to the world would choose you to make it happen. But, because gods don't exist, even someone like you who can't give his words the respect of a spell check can do the hawking. Are you perhaps transliterating your own speaking in tongues? I don't understand why you aren't more careful, more considerate of the words you write, since you claim to believe that those words can impart beliefs. Those beliefs become emblazoned on a soul. You further believe that your god performs a post mortem inspection of that soul looking for defects in those beliefs to decide if its owner gets shipped off to hell. Joe, if the words you write could be the difference between heaven and hell for some of your readers, they deserve more respect, more care, more love from you. If you know you have a cognitive impairment, deal with it. Don't create strings of words like "you hate God because he let you screw period," or strings of letters like "abaotleyl" and "intelelectual." To gain respect as an "intelelectual" you must act like an "intelelectual," which in part means dealing with your cognitive defects so that the language constructs you employ can be understood. Religious language is obviously human created and plenty stupid on its own without you creating an even more impenetrable drivel by fabricating random lexical and grammatical constructions. Since you clearly don't know this, let me tell you, in Real-Honest-To-God Christianity, only one species of sinner goes to hell: he whose language constructs interferes with other's understanding. Beware!
- the only things he had to say there were bad mouthing. no actual refutaion of the facts I brought out at the top.
goprairie said... - Metacrock: No one will debate you because your points have all been refuted and you still think you won. You are not debatable because you don't follow the rules. I would not play Scrabble with you either, because you would redefine the rules, make up new words with wacky definitions, declare foul if I rejected your non words, and when I had more points in the end, you would declare that I did not play fairly and declare yourself the winner. When you then asked someone else to play you, the self-declared champ, and they declined, you would be on here telling us no one will play Scrabble with you because of your superior Scrabble prowess. No one will debate you, true, but it is not for the reasons you claim. The reasons are obvious to everyone but you. You keep coming back with the same delusions and errors. Why?
- Anthony said...
- Goprairie: You keep coming back with the same delusions and errors. Why? Not only does he keep coming back with the same erors, but with the same nasty attitude. People talk about the angry atheist, Joe exemplifies the angry theist.
- These guys are saying that the great thinkrs such as Plantinga are stupid and shit and they are more intellectual, yet they can't follow a simple line of reasoning and they make no attempt to refute facts with other facts but they are smart one's we are the stupid one's! I have the bad attitude!
- goprairie said...
- Breckmin: New genes: Obviously you don't know how genes and genetics work. There are not unique genes for every characteristic, rather, there are 4basic kinds of genetic material. They are linked together to mean different things depending on how their order and lenghth. Words are made of letters. There are 26 letters. How many words are there. What does it take to make a new word? NOT new letters, just existing letters combined in a novel sequence. By using some existing stuff, letters, in a new combination, it is easy to make up a new words with new meanings. The new word did not require new material arising from scratch, merely that existing material be combined in a slightly new way. Some combinations work as words and many do not. For example, I can add ge from genetics to turf from landscaping and get gerf and it makes no sense. It won't enter common usage. Or I can take gen from genetics and combine it with idiot and call people like you who make up objections to evolution based on crappy understanding of the basics of genetics a 'genidiot' and if the audience here finds it to their liking and uses it a few times, it has become a new word. No new letters appeared out of nowhere but a new word came into being. Take your genidiocy somewhere where gullible people live.
- goprairie said...
- Breckmin: You seem to take a position that dogs and chimps and rats have similar biology because God like the design and reused it. Except if that were true, why did he include wacky stuff like the route of certain essentials of the male repoductive system where things loop around in ridiculous routes. The route makes sense if seen as a result of the ancestral animal switching from standing on four legs to two, causing the routes to get stretched out to work in this circuitous way. God would just use a direct route, you'd think. I.e., not reuse the parts that could be done more efficiently and effectively? So also for the routes of nerves in the human neck that make sense only as seen in the context of the horzontal spine becoming vertical. God would reroute those too, eh? If he was smart? Read "Why Evolution is True" before you trot out ideas like design reuse to explain animal body similarities. Evolution fits with how things are. God as an explanation requires us to accept ridiculous claims about God, like that he would think those things were good design.
- Metacrock said...
- Metacrock, first, most of what you've written here is a "crock!" Meta:that's not an argument. calling it names doesn't make it go away. I used several academic source, I am an academic historian. If you look at what John said about jme he says "this guy is the real deal." he called my school and he knows that I was a Ph.D. candidate nnwo you tell me my that's crock? hu? because just saying that is not an argument. you are not an intellectual. Secondly, the topic of the blog is natural theology, how has anything you have written related? Meta:Russ alluded to The Sucker-man study you tell me! ask Russ, I was just answering him. can't you guys even follow argument? you want to propagate this myth that Christians are stupid and you are so Superior and you can't even follow a simple line of reasoning! Can we get back to the subject at hand? you never got to it to begin with. Natural theology is not about science and not about who is intellectual and it about Sweden having a better from of government. On a side note (but related) I just got a copy of Alister McGrath's book "A Fine-Turned Universe" and will be adding it to my collection of books on natural theology. I hope to get around to reading it sometime this year. Meta:you are the one who wanted to get back to the topic! what does that have to do with it?
- Metacrock said...
- J.L. Hinman, Joe, JL, Metacrock, You obviously have some sort of cognitive defect. You would be better understood if you use a spell checker. You say, Meta:you have a cognitive defect yourself. Mine is called dyslexia. yours is called being stupid. you would be better understood if you a had a brain.
- Metacrock said...
- Goprairie: You keep coming back with the same delusions and errors. Why? Not only does he keep coming back with the same erors, but with the same nasty attitude. People talk about the angry atheist, Joe exemplifies the angry theist. aahahah what a pack of fools. you sit over patting each other on the back acting liek you are supuiror and you jus ta bunch of know nothings who never went to gradute school ridiculing great thinkers whose sandels you are not fit to clean, whose words you can never complrehend bu ti hav ethe attutide. Look at this, not one of you has managed to make a single substantive arguer about the subject matter. in this whole chlorophy of stupidity there are massive statements of how stupid theology is not but one single intellectual response to the empirical evidence taht I posted. you cannot respond to an augment intelligently. you even have to attack my dyslexia because that's the level of your stupidity. Plantinga is an idiot, you are the great intellectuals, not one of you can make a single substantive argument against what I said. I bet you can't even remember the original point that I made. Yea yea Plantinga and Harsshorne what idiots the why who spells stuff right he's the real intellectual.
