User talk:Ray Martinez

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Ray Martinez! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Many Questions

Are you the same one from conservapedia? If so, then either:

1. Your conservapedia account was a parody or
2. You're going to disagree with nearly everyone here.
3. If you're not the same as the conservapedia account, then ignore this as mindless rambling.

But welcome either way. Thunderkatz^Ho! 16:14, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes welcome. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 16:17, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Please, try the goat. And remember to tip your server. --Kels 16:18, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Ray, feel free to write the article on Atlantis. Be sure to include plenty of information about the eels. Stile4aly 16:43, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Are you the real Ray?-αmεσ (!) 17:16, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I believe he may be. I posted links to the RW mirrors of his parting diatribe to the talk.origins usenet group. He responded to it very quickly, and it wouldn't surprise me if he couldn't resist coming here to educate all us heathens. So, if he acts the donkey, my apologies, but I do hope we gain a few TOers out of the event as well. Stile4aly 21:02, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Very nice essay, well-thought out and such. I look forward to more of your work. For the umpteenth time, welcome! --Hjimachong 14:52, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the compliment. But are you not an Admin at Conservapedia? I thought I saw your name over there as a Moderator? Are you not philosophical friends with TK? Did we not clash a while back? Or did you clash with Conservative? Anyway, thanks again.

Ray Martinez 17:18, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

Alright, two questions...

"I am...a Old Earth/Young Biosphere Protestant Evangelical Creationist-Designist." Whatever happened to "I'm an Episcopalian." or "I 'm Catholic." ?? It's no wonder the American Christian right looks like a bunch of circus clowns piling out of a Volkswagen.

Okay, now a serious question - does it matter if Darwin was an atheist or an agnostic?

Yes, it does. I am currectly writing a large paper about Darwinism. I will explain why it is important and let evolutionary scholars identify Darwin an Atheist. But logic says all Atheists would not rabidly endorse and defend Darwin to the degree that they do if he was not an Atheist.

As our entry on Darwinism points out, it's not about Darwin, it's about *ideas*.

Actually, I agree that *ideas* are the main issue, but worldview determines what kind of ideas are produced.

I know very little about Darwin, and less about his religious beliefs, but if he *was* an Atheist, he was probably at some point in his life before that an agnostic - I'll bet that's the path most follow (belief-question-become an agnostic-question more-figure out there's no god-become a card-carrying atheist), it certainly was the one I followed. Instead of piling on what is really a Trivial Pursuit question concerning an individual, why not take on the harder task of dealing with ideas and discourse? PFoster 14:52, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

I am going to take on Darwin's ideas. The Agnostic coinage was not coined until 1869; therefore Darwin could not have been as such anytime before that date.

Ray Martinez 12:54, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

That's funny, I was just thinking that a few minutes ago. For the record, I don't give a rat's behind what faith Darwin was, claimed to be, is thought to be by others, or whatever. Atheist, agnostic, Catholic, Satanist, I don't really give a fig. It's celebrity gossip, at it's heart, albeit with a bit of an odd celebrity. Whether he was an atheist or not has about as much bearing on the modern science of evolution as what he had for breakfast on Thursdays. --Kels 14:56, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Then why is it a big deal that Dembski is a Christian? Or any other IDist? Is your opinion a two way street?

Ray Martinez 12:54, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Not really, since I don't think it's a big deal that Dembski is a Christian either. He can be whatever he wants, so long as he's not trying to pass his faith off as science when it's not. When it comes to where he spends his Sundays, or whatever, that's his own business. --Kels 13:02, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

It isn't a big deal that Dembski's a Christian. It's a big deal that he's trying to pass off religiously motivated apologetics as an alternative for actual science. Whether he's a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Agnostic, or Atheist is irrelevant; he's judged on his ideas which are bunk. Stile4aly 14:18, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Today I had two scrambled eggs, ham and baked beans. Make a note of that, should I go on to do anything worthwhile with my life.PFoster 15:00, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

No goat? Then I'm afraid any ideas you come up with in the future will have no merit. Try again in your next life. --Kels 15:42, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Follow-up on the atheist or agnostic question: why should agnosticism be "better?" I've never met an agnostic that supported a literal interpretation of Genesis or any other religious text. The attitude towards an individual religion is still non-belief.--MountainTiger 14:59, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Because (Using Creationist "Logic",) if Darwin was an Atheist, then EVERYTHING HE SAID WAS AN EVIL LIE FOR HIS MASTER SATAN, and can be ignored. Or something like that. --67.102.192.7 15:02, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

But the question is why an agnostic doesn't fall into the same category. After all, agnostics still doubt, and sometimes outright deny, the Bible.--MountainTiger 15:26, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Make nice

...with Ray...his essay is very interesting. Point well taken, though. If Darwin was into pedophagia he was still a genius with durable and powerful ideas.--PalMD^{-Ars longa, vita brevis} 15:05, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it was quite interesting. But that's one big difference between the Scientific worldview and the Religious worldview--Scientists generally don't try to judge fects by their moral implications, whereas Creationists often seem to argue that Hitler's use of evolutionary ideas mean that those ideas must be false. --67.102.192.7 15:11, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Welcome!

Welcome Ray Martinez! I am also a refugee from Conservapedia. It's a strange place, where their actions contradict their purpose. The Sysops have done much to drive off good editors. Aschlafly either doesn't see this, or doesn't care. After a while almost everyone is either banned, or comes to the conclusion that CP is just not a good place to contribute to. It could be a great site, but.. it isn't. My advice: accept this and move on, for your own personal happiness. Refugee^{talk page} 15:19, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Disagree

I disagree with you many points, but on one in particular. A literal interpretation of the bible (in terms of history and the origin of mankind) is not necessary to be a Christian. Why should it be?

Where did I advocate "literal Bible or Genesis," in fact I called the adjective "literal" slander IIRC?

You seemed to be implying before that because Judge Jones does not believe in creationism, he is an atheist. To me, that implies a literal interpretation is necessary to be a Christian. You can't deny that what you believe in is a literal interpretaton. You are a creationist. You think Genesis is true.

Is an uncharitable miser who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible a better Christian than an unselfish millionare who gives money to charity and believes in both Jesus and evolution? Even the pope said evolution and faith do not contradict.

The Pope is a strict old school Creationist. The Catholic Church talks out of both sides of their mouth in order to placate the secular world. That is why we Protestants broke away hundreds of years ago.

You ignored my first point.

Is the entire Catholic church corrupt enough to elect a heathen who would say something like that? You'll find a smattering of people on this site and all over the world who believe in both God and evolution. Do you think that every single one of them really an atheist?

No, some are clearly ignorant or confused. But Judge Jones and TK and Ken Miller are Atheists. In the N.T. we have the account of Jesus casting a demon out of a person who was attending the synagogue (type of any house of worship). That person had been attending the services probably for quite some time and nobody even noticed until Jesus showed up one day. The same with Jones and Miller. They are deceived. Real Christians would never go to bat for the ACLU no matter what.

Believing a single point made by the ACLU is not the same as as "going to bat" for them. And why wouldn't a real christian side with the ACLU? Is a real christian one who forces their views non-stop upon others, without tolerance? Didn't Jesus teach tolerance? Or is that one of those parts of the N.T. that "isn't really authenticate?" And how are some "clearly ignorant or confused"? Wouldn't you think biologists and other related scientists (who understand and accept evolution) wouldn't be ignorant about their own subject? That they'd understand what is going on and are making informed decisions?

If your answer to that last one is "yes", you should probably rethink your view of the world. If you've gotten this far, thank you for taking the time to read this. Thunderkatz^Ho! 16:01, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Ray Martinez 13:05, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Thunderkatz^Ho! 15:23, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Funny thing is, Theistic Evolution ("God made Man, but a monkey supplied the goo") is pretty well accepted as fact by Christians everywhere outside the US. European Creationists are considerably more of a fringe than their US counterparts. --Gulik 12:01, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

TEists are Darwinists.

Ray Martinez 13:05, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

YOu say that as if it's supposed to instill us with instinctive loathing for all their evil. --Gulik 13:40, 24 August 2007 (CDT) fnord

"TEists are Darwinists." Sure, by definition if they believe in evolution as the mechanism, then they're pretty likely to think Darwin was right on the early science. But so what? You keep making these assertions as if their importance were self-evident, but it ain't so, nohow. Since nobody much here thinks Darwin was particularly bad, using "Darwinist" as a pejorative kinda falls flat. --Kels 19:44, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

Since nobody much here thinks Darwin was particularly bad, Except Newton, probably. :) --Gulik 23:28, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

What's your beef with the ACLU?

Real Christians would never go to bat for the ACLU no matter what.

I'm sure that'll come as a suprise to these folks. What's your beef with the ACLU? Is it just the usual "They hate Jesus and Puppies!" thing they always get for trying to uphold the First Amendment? --Gulik 14:28, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

What's your beef with the ACLU?

Other than them being the most pro-Atheist and fanatically pro-evolution, Constitution corrupting, anti-Bible and Christian hating zealots imaginable - nothing at all.

Ray Martinez 17:12, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

"pro-Atheist" = not being deluded into thinking, against any and all available evidence and against any sort of rational thought, that there is a tooth fairy, Santa Claus Great Gazoo god. "Fanatically pro-evolution" = believing in science and rationality and their ability to explain the world, as opposed to a set of oppressive, out-dated, patriarchal and ultimately silly belief systems. "Anti-Bible" = not a bad set of stories, as such, but nothing that gives itself any reason to be the basis for a rational society. "Christian hating" = prove it. Or conversely, Christianity has proven itself to be a pretty hateful set of beliefs through its long and ignoble history. It has earned it. PFoster 18:29, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

1. 'Constitution corrupting?' Which part of the First Amendment do you not comprehend?
2. If you think they're the 'most Christian hating zealots imaginable', why not move to Saudi Arabia? None of that pesky separation of Church and State THERE! --Gulik 20:53, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Note

Serious personal attacks and overly bigoted comments will not be tolerated for long. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 19:34, 26 August 2007 (CDT)