It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Atheist Chat

page: 20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 08:42 AM
I think the entire holiday is pirate-themed, according to photos on this site, MIMS.

C'mon, give Malta a day to remember!

I'll have to go get my costume box out of storage. At least where I live, I can always pretend I'm rooting for the Raiders if someone looks at me funny.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Dumbfirefly

It's the promotion of these types of notions that annoys me. If someone wants to live in their blissfully ignorant world where they were specially made, then fine. But actively promoting such ideas to inhibit areas of learning - such as the Creationism in school science curriculums issue - is deplorable.

Though Christianity is getting more liberal in some arenas (though by no means are the fundies backing down), the general idea religions tend to entertain are sexism, racism, homophobia and general bigotry. Any religious fundamentalism - or fanatic extremism - is never good news.

Good points, Dumbfirefly. I think it's a debaucle that Faith schools exist at all, and the concept of Creationism being included in regular schools curriculums is deplorable. Like you said, if someone wants to believe such then they should do so without it effecting the learnings of others. Especially children.

I think the future of religion as a staple part of life, in the West anyway, will only exist if it follows two routes. Either the major religions start to liberalise more, with acceptance of all people, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation or even religious sentiments, or lack thereof. That way it would stop being misused as a reasoning for warfare, and go back to what it should only be, and that is a catalyst for faith.

The other route that religion could go is the way of the fundamentalist extremists, and thats to the Biblical times of destroying set views and rebuilding them in the way of whomever is in power. Much as was done around the time all this jazz started. Bigotry would become more stalwart in such an event, as it was such persecution which originally enabled religious groups to wield power over a people, by exploiting minorities for its own gain. Evidence of such actions can be seen through out history, the most predominant nowadays being in pre-invasion Afghanistan.

Let's hope the latter does not occur.


posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:04 PM
I thought this may be interesting for you all to hear.

I was watching 'The Universe' (very interesting series on, you guessed it, the universe
) episode 14 which talks about the big bang, how the theory evolved, its competitors and a little on how religion played part.

What is surprising is a Catholic priest Georges Lemaître was the first to suggest (through scientific analysis i might add) that the universe is expanding and there for must have been infinantly small at one point in time which he called his hypothesis of the primeval atom.

I think an important part in this is it shows that religious people can work side by side with science, Lemaître had no problem altering his beliefs to fit with new evidence that contradicts his beliefs just like changing a theory when new evidence is presented, something most religions lack which is a shame.

Though it does happen, ask a Christian if we are at the center of the universe which apparently we are according to Christian beliefs before they were alters (for the nth time)

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:45 PM
When you said "Catholic priest," Edn, I thought to myself, "I wonder if he was a Jesuit"?


I don't know why, but the Jesuits have a reputation for intellectualism beyond what I usually see in churches.

Interesting that the Big Bang was hypothesized by a priest.

If I was one to use the argument from authority, I'm sure that would really go a long way in debate in certain topics on ATS.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:38 AM
OK so is anyone else annoyed by the way people tell us that atheists are in love with the Christian god and the bible? What part of atheism don't these people get? Knowing the enemy so you can argue with its minions is not the same as loving it.

Maybe I just have a raw nerve this morning. All I know is, I left an abusive marriage where my husband always "knew" what I was thinking and what my intent of my every action was, and it drove me nuts. I don't need it from people online that don't have a clue who I am or how I think.

"I'm a skeptic EXCEPT when it comes to the paranormal." Well, that means you AREN'T REALLY A SKEPTIC THEN. Gah.

I now return you to this recently quiet thread ...

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by MajorMalfunction

what's also bad is when you get the "you're blaming a being you don't believe in"

i don't like that statement at all. pointing out the flaws in your argument isn't the same as acknowledging your sky-fairy of choice

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:58 PM

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
I stumbled on this video at Atheist Nation the other day, and thought to share it for a little comic relief:

awesome, I needed that,

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 02:35 PM

warning, keep a bag or trash can near you in case you need to vomit whilst reading this article

Why almost half of voters polled say
they'd support a God-denier for president

that's the title of it..
i think you can see where this article goes from there

then again... this is coming from the news source that is PROUD to have chuck norris as a columnist

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:21 PM
Wait, Chuck Norris can WRITE? Wow.

I love how we have an "agenda." My "agenda" is to live life without a crutch or sobbing in church about my "sins" on a Sunday then spending my week hating people for their own lifestyle choices.

Maybe people are becoming atheists because they don't believe the contradictory bull that is most religion these days. I guess that's too easy of an explanation.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
Oh, I wouldn't worry.

That article was really just an ad, wasn't it? With other ads in the sidebar, one of them a t-shirt ad featuring a busty girl model perfectly calculated to set the Religious Right's trousers a-twitching. What Pharisees these people are.

And this is eminently why they fail to convince: it's so clear that they hanker desperately after the very 'vices' they condemn so aggressively. They're suckers for anything to do with the old rumpy-pumpy, a large number of them are secretly gay (like good ole Larry Twoface who got caught doing a George Michael in an airport toilet*), they're moneygrubbers par excellence and most of all they're helpless, gullible, pathetic consumers.

Seriously, Major: I know you're going through a horrid time right now and you're probably a bit vulnerable, but don't let their prating grind you down. They're not worth it.

They're history -- in fact, as I've been arguing on this thread, they're prehistory.

* Instructive to compare the hash old Larry is making of the incident with how beautifully George handled it, no?

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 09:07 AM
Very interesting stuff, Astyanax. Do you mind my asking, what is it you do for a living? Or what is your educational training? You have such a wonderful grasp on these subjects.

posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 09:28 AM
Okies, I've been coming up against this in a couple of threads recently and want the take of other atheists on this. If, that is, I can explain it properly.

The subject is special privilege for Christian believers in society, mainly demanded by certain (not all) Christians themselves.

By this I mean, their rights are more important than anyone else's rights.

For instance, there has been a rather heated argument about putting the ten commandments in public buildings at taxpayer's expense.

My point was that, other than the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state, not everyone in America is a Christian and so their religious values have no place being posted on public property (an employee can still wear his cross, for example, but putting a huge brass bible in the law library isn't on).

Once I'd brought up this point, I was shouted down for trying to curb the Christians' rights. I tried pointing out that they are abrogating MY rights and the rights of members of other religions in this country, but nobody listened. They just got nasty with the ad hominem attacks.

I even went so far as to ask, how would they feel then, if I had FSM's Eight I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts posted in their church at their own personal expense, to try to get them to understand the sense of outrage non-Christians might have about "god" in public buildings at OUR expense.

Nobody bothered to answer.

So, what's this all about? Have this particular brand of Christian forgotten what America is about? Why do they claim special privilege but refuse to see why it would be giving them special privilege that nobody should have over another?

How best to reply to this to show them how authoritarian they're being? Or is it an impossible ideal?

It's bad enough "god" is on the money, does he have to be in the post office, too?


posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 11:25 AM
It would seam to me a lot (dont get me wrong, not all, just a lot) of those small Christian towns in the US tend to think the US is there 'for Christians only' land and that they have a higher right to everything over anyone else who doesn't believe what they believe.

A lot of it imo has to go down to the US being such a young county, that sort of Christian fundamentalism is almost non existent in the UK, there are a few people but really ive only come across one person who would come close to that and well, he was American, but even he would accept that I don't believe in his god.

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by MajorMalfunction

I think this is a fundamental flaw in all faith-based reasoning about these issues. If you believe in God, in God's word and God's law, you are compelled to abide by it. You will feel and believe that the word should be spread, that it is 'right' and true and you will oppose arguments against it and attempts to obstruct the spread of the word. You may well genuinely believe that you are doing the right thing both in terms of scripture and according to God's will.

For all of us atheists, or non-theists, overcoming the above thinking to establish some kind of fair ground in society that favours no one belief over the other, and accords religious beliefs and faith with no special preference or treatment in political, social and economic decisions, is pretty difficult. Especially since so many powerful decision-makers are openly religious.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by Skunky]

[edit on 21-9-2007 by Skunky]

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:43 PM

this will make you vomit. it's everything that we've been railing against in this thread and more to an extreme.

...what's so horrible is that so many take this so seriously

quite possibly the worst part:

13.4 Creationists tend to win creation-evolution debates

[edit on 9/21/07 by madnessinmysoul]

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:47 PM
If you define winning as shouting as loud as you can while not reading the other side of the argument, until the other side just gives up and goes away, then I agree.

Just because the rational person is also reasonable, and knows when not to beat a dead horse, doesn't mean they've "lost" anything. Discretion is the better part of valor.

Those people scare me, though. I'm going to give that site a better going-over after I have some dinner.

posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 05:30 AM
so apparently there are reasonable explanations for atheism

* Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence[10]

* Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies.[11][12][13][14] The Bible asserts that "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalms 14:1 (KJV)). The biblical fool is said to be lacking in sound judgment and the biblical fool is also associated with moral depravity. For example, the biblical book of Proverbs states: "A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of evil devices is hated. The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge."(Proverbs 14:16-18 (NASB)). The book of Proverbs also has strong words regarding the depravity of biblical fools: "The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but [it is] abomination to fools to depart from evil." (Proverbs 13:9 (KJV)). Regarding the deceitfulness of fools Proverbs states: "The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way, But the foolishness of fools is deceit." (Proverbs 14:8 (KJV)). Noted Bible commentator and clergyman Matthew Henry wrote regarding atheism: "A man that is endued with the powers of reason, by which he is capable of knowing, serving, glorifying, and enjoying his Maker, and yet lives without God in the world, is certainly the most despicable and the most miserable animal under the sun."[15]

* Superficiality: Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his Stanford professors who were united in disbelief regarding God.[16]

* Error: Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts [17]


State churches: Rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States). Some argue this is because state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population, while churches independent of the state are leaner and more adaptable. It is important to distinguish "state-sanctioned churches," where participation is voluntary, from "state-mandated churches" (such as Saudi Arabia) with much lower atheism rates because publicly admitted atheism is punishable by death. [18]

* Poor relationship with father: Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one towards becoming an atheist.[19] Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book entitled Faith of the Fatherless in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent.[20][21] Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.[22] Dr. Vitz has also stated other common factors he observed in the famous atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.[23]

* Division in religion: According to Francis Bacon, atheism is caused by "divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division addeth zeal to both sides, but many divisions introduce atheism." [24]

* Learned times, peace, and prosperity: Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by "Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion."[25]

* Negative experiences with Christians [26]

i love that the whole "moral depravity" part is a circular bible argument even though "Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies."

the studies are bull... one states that acceptance of profanity, homosexuality, drunkeness, pornography, premarital sex, gambling, co-habitation, and sexual fantasies is moral depravity.
also, atheists not giving as much to charity is also moral depravity (we don't but the issue is far more complex... and then you look at the ridiculously rich atheists and you see that they give far more than the ridiculously rich theists, ie bill gates and warren buffet)

[edit on 9/22/07 by madnessinmysoul]

and conservapedia also claims einstein as one who believed in god..

[edit on 9/22/07 by madnessinmysoul]

posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 09:38 AM
Now I see where some of our more obtuse opponents in the theism threads get their "information."

I wonder if it's possible to sue for defamation of character? That could be VERY interesting. And much easier than suing God. :shk: How's that senator going to have god served with the summons, anyway?

posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 05:43 PM
I was just looking at my bookshelves and found a bunch of stuff I nearly forgot I had. I have the Bible and the Apocrypha because they're handy to use as references.

but what do I need a book on Mayan Astrology, all those volumes of Linda Goodman, and "The Only Astrology Book You Will Ever Need" for?

I was looking at those books just now and thinking that (the Goodman at least) these have been with me all my adult life, but I don't really believe in that stuff anymore, except from force of habit. But I am oddly reluctant to get rid of them. Why? If I know the stuff is false, why keep them? I need room on my shelf for all the evolution, biology, and history books I've been reading.

I feel like I need a 12-step program almost -- except for the fact that 12 stepping isn't for everyone, and it has a very religious feel to it.

Well, it's another tight month; maybe I'll pack up the superstition (except for the research material) and go sell it at Half-Price Books.

It's hard to let go, though. What's that all about? I can't see myself suddenly waking up and going, "Oh forget all this reason. Back to thinking planetary motion can affect a human life."

I wonder what a boxful of superstition will bring at the used bookstore? $7 maybe.

I KNOW it's nonsense, so why is it so hard to part with it? :shk:


posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 06:15 PM
I have a bible that i was given at birth. Thats about it.

Though you just reminded me of something, theres another bible in my house, and I remember reading (a little) of both and I noticed that neither are the same, there similar but the translations (or interpretations) of the book are different, different words used in different places and they even sometimes give the impression of an entirely different meaning.

new topics

top topics

<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in