Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

reply to post by melatonin


Yeah, I get that about Karma etc, but who has set the criteria?
If I'm to be reincarnated who determined the criteria that dictates which lifeform which I am reincarnated as, an amoeba or a mouse or another human being say????

I hope I have expressed that ok.
Hell, I'm no expert on the various philosophies within Buddhism but I'm no ignoramous either.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Yeah, I get that about Karma etc, but who has set the criteria?
If I'm to be reincarnated who determined the criteria that dictates which lifeform which I am reincarnated as, an amoeba or a mouse or another human being say????

I assume it is a feature of the universe. It sort of suggests the universe has embedded platonic values.

Thus, who decides that when you throw a ball it should fall? Again, I'm not an expert, but I suppose we carry around a karmic energy or something. When we do bad stuff, it negatively alters this karma thing. When we do good stuff, it positively alters it. When we die, the sum of our behaviours are expressed in karma, and lead to our reincarnated form.

It all sounds a bit far-fetched to me, but no moreso than a super-hero god who listens to prayers, watches bedroom habits, and sends messages to chosen people through his ACME telepa-phone.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Yeah, it all sounds a bit implausible to me.
But if a mish-mash and full of if's and but's and maybe's.
I guess that's another reason why I'm agnostic.
It's all so unprovable.

Sorry, I would love to discuss further but I've got to go to the pub now and worship the one true God; BEER!

Originally posted by Freeborn
Yeah, it all sounds a bit implausible to me.
But if a mish-mash and full of if's and but's and maybe's.
I guess that's another reason why I'm agnostic.
It's all so unprovable.

True. I go further and fall into the atheist box, but I hear ya.

Sorry, I would love to discuss further but I've got to go to the pub now and worship the one true God; BEER!

I hope it shall be the holy carlsberg export, otherwise heathens like you shall suffer an eternal episode of indigestion and hangovers...

Cheers!

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

...actually, we promote the inclusion of either all religious symbols pertaining to the season or none at all...
if there was a jewish display, we'd ask for a christian one to be added (so long as it's on public land and not a matter of private choice)

and, honestly, that whole idea of a "war on christmas" is something bill o'reilly made up to get higher ratings.
we don't care what holiday you celebrate, it's why we say "happy holidays" to cover all of them

WHO THE HELL IS "WE" Madd? You do this all the time,, you say their is no "we" whenever I say all Atheist's claiming they don't belong to anu "group" and that I don'ty have a right to lump them all together in the same way you have with all religions, yet here YOU ARE telling me the very things I saw going on MYSELF in this forum and at the malls YOU position yourself as "spokesman" for "THEM" .

Do I need to copy paste the ignorant posts made by you in the thread taking jesus out of Christmas? I will if you like? They certainly weren't indicative of the philosophy you are saying you espouse here in this post.

whats it gonna be mad??

Ive cross referenced all your posts, DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SAY THIS

atheism isn't a philosophy it's a single position. if people do something, they don't do it in the name

DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SAY THIS

i say religion is bad if something is bad, you get rid of it.

So DON'T TELL ME YOU DON'T ESPOUSE THE OPINION OF PEOPLE LIKE HARRIS AND DAWKINS WHEN YOU HAVE SAID WORDS TO THE SAME EFFECT BECAUSE I GOT NEWS FOR YA BUDDY!!!

YOU HAVE! AND I GOT PLENTY MORE WHERE THESE CAME FROM !

ben franklin thought a lighthouse was more valuable than a church

Guess what madd,, BEN FRANKLIN WAS AN ATHEIST! SO I GUESS THAT ONE WAS A NO BRAINER HUH!

we just like to point out that many of the founding fathers were deists instead of the common myth perpetuated that they were all christians founding a christian nation..

So you point it out be saying

"fortunatley the founding fathers who hated christianity made sure that couldn't happen by creating the separation of church and state in the constitution"

Let me tell you something MADD to this very day the supreme court starts each session with (close your eyes everyone) GOD SAVE THE UNITED STATES. NONE of the founding fathers had a damn thing to do with separation of church and state IN FACT YOU WON'T EVEN FIND IT IN THERE UNTILL 1947.

uh huh...freedom of religion for everyone except those with no religion...

excuse me madd,, BUT IT IS FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION!
YOU are the one saying Atheism isn't a religion so don't complain when you got no religion to express! If you have no religious expression that isn't our fault. You can become a Christian or what ever you like.

I don't see why this would infringe on your so called buddist faith do you!!

But NOOOoooOOO we see the same MIMS method of flip flopping back and fourth from one side to the other whenever it suits your argument.

MADD IT'S LIKE THIS,,
YOU STAND FOR ONE THING OR I AM GONNA KEEP POINTING IT OUT SO YOU FALL FOR EVERYTHING.

So which is it?

you're betraying your ignorance on the theory of evolution...a theory which so many theists accept

You call it ignorance I don't and ill debate you any day on how idiotic evolution is ANY DAY YOU LIKE. As for so many theists??

how many is "so many"

wow, a scientist made a mistake...and then another scientist proved it wrong!

You call an Atheist Scientist finding a pigs tooth and building an entire skeleton around it writing documents for peer review a MISTAKE!

That was an intentional and egregiously fraudulent act to prove the lie of evolution madd and fortunatley a REAL scientist one that doesn't subscribe to people like you and dawkins beliefe and can explore outside the box of limiting their theory to that of only what they can see. Again you want to blind yourself to the facts that this was an out and out SCAM.

Ill tell you what the mistake was, finding an Atheist scientist like Darwin who had serious issues with religion and like the pigs tooth they built a skeleton around,, this idiot build an entire science around that very kind of mistake!

...science is the study of the natural... so that statement is not stupid. the point is that we'd need a new branch of study to tackle the supernatural

I am not saying it's stupid I am saying UNTILL THEY GET THAT NEW BRANCH OF STUDY,,THEY SHOULD QUIT THINKING THEY KNOW SO DAMN MUCH!

ok...another example of how evolutionary biology showed itself to be wrong on a particular issue.

YEP!

...um...no
see, you clearly don't understand evolution if you think anyone is saying we descended from gorillas learn to understand a theory before you criticize it and again...evolutionary biology proved it to be wrong

You're damn right I don't understand it,, NOT WHEN IT LIES NOT WHEN IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE NOT WHEN ANOTHER ATHEIST SCIENTIST FUDGES DATA IN FAVOR OF PERPETUATING THE BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC HOAX EVER CREATED.

ok...you've attacked 3 specimens out of hundreds of millions and you think you have a case?

Let me tell you something madd I have looked this topic inside and out up and down and those I sited were FAMOUS DISCOVERIES now you want more I got more all you have to do is ask but the point I am making and you keep missing is this.

You keep MISSING THE POINT

And making excuses for it while NO amount of proof will convince you.

So if you can't get it

quit

- Con

[edit on 1-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Moderator note:
The use of ALL CAPS Please don't post with the caps lock on
and
Courtesy Is Mandatory


[edit on 1-3-2008 by dbates]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
on the other hand, christians are trying to change the constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage...

No, that's not specifically a Christian point of view. Even from the government's secular point of view, it's in the best interest of the country for male-female couples to join in union since that's the only match that produces offspring and provides a future for the country. Male-male or female-female matches are the equivalent of driving with the car still in park. You can start the engine, turn the wheel, and even use the accellerator and break but you never get anywhere.

If you're rebuttal is that same-sex couples can raise children, that still doesn't rule out the fact that it took a male-female couple to produce the children. Same sex unions are pointless except for the emotional or sexual gratification that those involved get. There is no extra benefit for society from these unions.

Seeing how it is more advangeous to have male-female couples why shouldn't the government discourage same-sex unions? You can completley remove any religious aspect and still have a valid arguement. The arguement that it's just a religious war is invalid.

(I think it's pointless to add this into the Constitution. This is an area that the states should individiually decide on. )


[edit on 1-3-2008 by dbates]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
You call an Atheist Scientist finding a pigs tooth and building an entire skeleton around it writing documents for peer review a MISTAKE!

...

That was an intentional and egregiously fraudulent act to prove the lie of evolution

I do love it when people make comments like this. I guess we are talking about Henry Fairfield Osborn here.

Can we have evidence that he was an atheist?

Please?

He also did make a mistake. He never found the tooth, he was just mistaken in his description of it. After much debate, it was correctly classified as a Peccary tooth. And I don't think it was intentional or fraudulant - unless your god has given you a special ability to read the mind of a long-dead scientist.

And the claim about him 'building an entire skeleton' is also wrong. Osborn did no such thing. Some dude made an illustration for a popular magazine.

But a great example of the position of science is that once a particular claim has been shown to be wrong, it loses scientific credibility. Yet we have the Paluxy footprint and Malachite man rubbish still bouncing around the creationist echo-chamber. What this shows it that one group (scientists) are searching for reliability and veracity, the second (creationist pseudoscientists) do not care for such things.

ABE:

You call it ignorance I don't and ill debate you any day on how idiotic evolution is ANY DAY YOU LIKE. As for so many theists??

how many is "so many"

A lot? If we take the most recent US poll, it shows that 53% agreed with evolutionary explanation for humans being probably or defintely true. Thus, you could apply that to the recent poll assessing religious beliefs in the US and work out a rough figure.

However, the crappiness of polls is shown in the opposite question about creationism - which is a little bit different, but the evolution question is most relevant for your question.

link

[edit on 1-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
WHO THE HELL IS "WE" Madd? You do this all the time,, you say their is no "we" whenever I say all Atheist's claiming they don't belong to anu "group" and that I don'ty have a right to lump them all together in the same way you have with all religions, yet here YOU ARE telling me the very things I saw going on MYSELF in this forum and at the malls YOU position yourself as "spokesman" for "THEM" .

i meant the atheists here on ATS...i should've made that more clear

Do I need to copy paste the ignorant posts made by you in the thread taking jesus out of Christmas? I will if you like? They certainly weren't indicative of the philosophy you are saying you espouse here in this post.

um...what posts are you referring to?
and jesus wasn't an original part of the winter solstice festival...

whats it gonna be mad??

i don't know, but you seem to be making threats...

Ive cross referenced all your posts,

ok...that's more than a bit creepy.

DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SAY THIS

atheism isn't a philosophy it's a single position. if people do something, they don't do it in the name

i did say that...atheism = "i don't believe in god(s)"

it's kind of true and far from ignorant

DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SAY THIS

i say religion is bad if something is bad, you get rid of it.

but i never said anything about overthrowing it.
that's called quote mining. my opinion on the issue is that people should get rid of it for themselves instead of some top-down overthrowing process

So DON'T TELL ME YOU DON'T ESPOUSE THE OPINION OF PEOPLE LIKE HARRIS AND DAWKINS WHEN YOU HAVE SAID WORDS TO THE SAME EFFECT BECAUSE I GOT NEWS FOR YA BUDDY!!!

...i never said i disagreed with dawkins' position that we should seek to raise people's consciousness in an effort to remove religion...
that's not at all the same thing as "overthrowing christianity"

YOU HAVE! AND I GOT PLENTY MORE WHERE THESE CAME FROM !

please, stop with the caps lock

ben franklin thought a lighthouse was more valuable than a church

Guess what madd,, BEN FRANKLIN WAS AN ATHEIST! SO I GUESS THAT ONE WAS A NO BRAINER HUH!

here is my point, it went right over your head: some of the founding fathers disagreed with christanity.

"fortunatley the founding fathers who hated christianity made sure that couldn't happen by creating the separation of church and state in the constitution"

i said this?
seriously, i don't make spelling mistakes in my posts and this has two...
and there were founding fathers who hated christanity...

Let me tell you something MADD to this very day the supreme court starts each session with (close your eyes everyone) GOD SAVE THE UNITED STATES.

um...so they're stupid?
that's pretty much all that shows me. they should at least make it "god, gods, or whatever floats your boat save the united states"

NONE of the founding fathers had a damn thing to do with separation of church and state IN FACT YOU WON'T EVEN FIND IT IN THERE UNTILL 1947.

um...not even ben franklin?
let me refer you to something called the Treaty of Tripoli...it's been US sovereign law since 1797...

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

excuse me madd,, BUT IT IS FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION!
YOU are the one saying Atheism isn't a religion so don't complain when you got no religion to express! If you have no religious expression that isn't our fault. You can become a Christian or what ever you like.

...that makes absolutely no sense.
atheism has a position on religion, it's "no" so we have our right to expression

I don't see why this would infringe on your so called buddist faith do you!!

But NOOOoooOOO we see the same MIMS method of flip flopping back and fourth from one side to the other whenever it suits your argument.

"NOOOoooOOO"? seriously, what sort of statement is that in an adult conversation?
um...atheistic buddhism.
i'm not flip flopping, you just refuse to understand what i'm saying

MADD IT'S LIKE THIS,,
YOU STAND FOR ONE THING OR I AM GONNA KEEP POINTING IT OUT SO YOU FALL FOR EVERYTHING.

you either lack the ability to comprehend what i'm saying or you're not even paying attention to it...
and seriously, caps lock?

So which is it?

i think you're just spinning, and being quite rude in the process

You call it ignorance I don't and ill debate you any day on how idiotic evolution is ANY DAY YOU LIKE. As for so many theists??

how many is "so many"

well, i'm going to have to say a few hundred million theists...seeing as the official position of the roman catholic church is that evolution is proper...

You call an Atheist Scientist finding a pigs tooth and building an entire skeleton around it writing documents for peer review a MISTAKE!

can you prove that the man you're talking about was an atheist?

Again you want to blind yourself to the facts that this was an out and out SCAM.

fact: evolution has evidence behind it
fact: there exists no alternative to evolutionary theory that is supported by evidence
fact: there are several competing theories, they can be found in any mythology book

Ill tell you what the mistake was, finding an Atheist scientist like Darwin who had serious issues with religion and like the pigs tooth they built a skeleton around,, this idiot build an entire science around that very kind of mistake!

darwin was a theist prior to his development of evolutionary theory
he became an agnostic at some point
and he didn't make any mistake, read his books

I am not saying it's stupid I am saying UNTILL THEY GET THAT NEW BRANCH OF STUDY,,THEY SHOULD QUIT THINKING THEY KNOW SO DAMN MUCH!

yeah....the discipline that's responsible for the totality of human knowledge should stop acting like it knows so much...
honestly, there's no reason to study that which has no evidence
there is no evidence for it, there's no branch of study

YEP!

notice how i said "proved itself"
science is self checking...it found the right answer on its own...

You're damn right I don't understand it,,

then cram some knowledge of it into your head and then we'll talk about it

NOT WHEN IT LIES

it doesn't lie...it's made mistakes, but not lied

NOT WHEN IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE

it makes quite a bit of sense

NOT WHEN ANOTHER ATHEIST SCIENTIST FUDGES DATA IN FAVOR OF PERPETUATING THE BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC HOAX EVER CREATED.

more of the caps lock?
anyway.
not all scientists supporting evolutionary theory are atheists
and the biggest hoax was geocentrism or flat-earth theory
...both of which were supported by religion

Let me tell you something madd I have looked this topic inside and out up and down and those I sited were FAMOUS DISCOVERIES now you want more I got more all you have to do is ask but the point I am making and you keep missing is this.

they're only famous because they were proven to be incorrect...
most of the important discoveries are quite obscure...because that's a sad fact of science, it's not about glamor and fame

You keep MISSING THE POINT

no, i just see that your point is incorrect

And making excuses for it while NO amount of proof will convince you.

proof would convince me...the problem is that you don't understand what is required to prove your position.

[edit on 3/1/08 by madnessinmysoul]

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
on the other hand, christians are trying to change the constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage...

No, that's not specifically a Christian point of view.

interesting, but i said that christians are the ones introducing the amendments.

Even from the government's secular point of view, it's in the best interest of the country for male-female couples to join in union since that's the only match that produces offspring and provides a future for the country.

marriage isn't just about offspring, marriage is essentially an agreement, a contract of sorts
in the most cynical terms it's a purely financial agreement and in the most romantic of them it's a pure expression of love
there are many people incapable of producing offspring that can get married

Male-male or female-female matches are the equivalent of driving with the car still in park. You can start the engine, turn the wheel, and even use the accellerator and break but you never get anywhere.

then we shouldn't let barren women and infertile men marry either...
but that would be wrong, wouldn't it?

If you're rebuttal is that same-sex couples can raise children, that still doesn't rule out the fact that it took a male-female couple to produce the children.

but marriage isn't required to produce those children...

Same sex unions are pointless except for the emotional or sexual gratification that those involved get. There is no extra benefit for society from these unions.

actually, there is
promoting monogamy in the homosexual community and promoting marriage in general.
today we live in a world where marriage has been debased. we're at about a 50% divorce rate, there are drive through marriages, and it's something people do when they're drunk, so why not promote marriage for people that take it seriously and are treating it as something important?

Seeing how it is more advangeous to have male-female couples why shouldn't the government discourage same-sex unions? You can completley remove any religious aspect and still have a valid arguement. The arguement that it's just a religious war is invalid.

only if you include the exclusion of marriage for the barren, infertile, and those beyond an age of childbearing..
and testing people for fertility before marriage would kind of be unconstitutional

(I think it's pointless to add this into the Constitution. This is an area that the states should individiually decide on. )

eh, that's actually not really a good idea
human rights issues should never be left up to individual states...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there are many people incapable of producing offspring that can get married

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the probability is still 0 for same-sex couples.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
then we shouldn't let barren women and infertile men marry either...

There are many medical treatments that help barren couples to have children. Of course this only applies to male-female couples. Medical science can do nothing for same-sex couples


[edit on 2-3-2008 by dbates]

Originally posted by dbates
Medical science can do nothing for same-sex couples

Interesting question for ya, db!

What happens when medical science can do something for same-sex couples?

Lets say medical science can provide a method to clone or make a child from the genomes of both parents. What then? Time to allow marriage for same-sex partners?

reply to post by melatonin


Uh, NO!
Why would people deliberately pervert nature and deny children a mother or a father ON PURPOSE???

Isn't the world bad enough without subverting nature itself by cloning?

Originally posted by Clearskies
Uh, NO!
Why would people deliberately pervert nature and deny children a mother or a father ON PURPOSE???

Isn't the world bad enough without subverting nature itself by cloning?

If you believe some of your bible, your god already introduced a method to this - death in childbirth

Anyway, forget that, it doesn't need to be cloning, it was just one option. Scientists are already patenting methods to produce 'female' sperm and stuff.

Ok, so lets say cloning is out because it makes CS feel icky. Lets say we have two lesbians, and we can allow one to produce 'female' sperm. This can be used in an IVF procedure, and a child produced that is the genetic offspring of both parents. Just like your own Kids, CS.

Is marriage going to be allowed?

[edit on 1-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by dbates


That's ridiculous. Gay couples aren't going to go straight just because the law says they can't marry. Allowing gay marriage has zero impact on population whatsoever.

And yes, it IS mainly Christians trying to have it made into law. Constitutional law, no less. Because for heaven's sake, -Christians- have so much room to talk about how to be married...

[edit on 1-3-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by melatonin


Again, no.
My boys are VERY much like their Daddy.
Two Mommies would NOT have given me my boys!
At least not in a 'natural' sense and I believe natural, when it comes to children is best.

Originally posted by Clearskies
Again, no.
My boys are VERY much like their Daddy.
Two Mommies would NOT have given me my boys!
At least not in a 'natural' sense and I believe natural, when it comes to children is best.

OK, thanks for your thoughts. But it's not about what you want, but these two hypothetical parents. IVF isn't natural either, but it happens.

Anyway, I look forward to knowing you'll be cringing over this, heh. This will happen in the future I think.

However, the same question is still outstanding for db. His issues appear to be solely related to producing offspring, so I'll be interesting in his opinions.

Originally posted by melatonin


I do love it when people make comments like this. I guess we are talking about Henry Fairfield Osborn here.

Can we have evidence that he was an atheist?

Please?

*Clickety Click*

.The past two decades of research has overturned nearly all the assumptions and predictions of an earlier generation of modern secular and atheist thinkers relating to the issue of God.



First, we must realize, when dealing with this Science, to better understand why anyone would subscribe to such crap, we must first, open our skulls and take out half of our brains. Frankly I think roaming around the desert for forty years is better then listening to two minuets of Atheists trying to explain their UN belief.

OTA BENGA: "The Smarts of Science"

Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the Congo. Chained and caged like an animal, evolutionists displayed him in the St Louis Worlds Fair calling him the "the closest transitional link to man". Later, they displayed him like a beast in the Bronx Zoo in New York.

The zoo's evolutionist director Dr William T. Hornaday, said how proud he was to have this "transitional form” of mans evolution in his zoo. Treated like a caged animal, missing his family, his kids, Unable to bear the mis treatment he was subjected too, Ota Benga committed suicide.

www.evolutiondeceit.com...

We can thank Atheist's Science of Evolution to mistake an aborigine for a cave man. HOW ASININE CAN THIS SCIENCE BE!

embryonic recapitulation

Ernst Haeckel proposed theory circa 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution hailed as one of the greatest developments regarding human evolution. A few years later, his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured to fit Darwin’s theory.

Another one Bites the dust and another BIG F A T LIE!

Second Piece of Fossil Forgery Identified

www.scientificamerican.com...

Another one Bites the dust and another BIG F A T LIE!

For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written on "Piltdown man", many interpretations and drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as important evidence for human evolution. No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject

Henry Fairfield Osborn said "We have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes" and proclaimed Piltdown "a discovery of transcendent importance to the prehistory of man.


It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orangutan had been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements. In the detailed analysis completed by Joseph Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a recently deceased ape!


Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, who uncovered the forgery, was so disgusted he said: "The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. It had been displayed for more than 40 years! Then their was theory that had to come from that mistake which led to more lies more garbage in more junk science out.

These bubblegum chewing finger filing bimbosapiens you call Scientists, are one notch above used car salesman when it comes to the Science of evolution. It is in such dire need of being THROWN in the TRASH bin of DUMB IDEA it is un-believable that it is still being taught. That bio-babble bullpucky you call science is a JOKE and your statistics regarding that believes it, means nothing Mel’s desperate use of Ad-populism illogical fallacy.

Evolution is the most absolutely PATHETIC excuse to explain the origin of man. It is nothing more then Atheism's Religion being injected into the public schools behind a very transparent facade they want us to believe is Science.

Atheists who have proclaimed themselves as the intellectually scientific crowd are anything BUT intelligent if they believe this bunk, in-fact, they are either really gullible or very desperate to cling to such an easily debunked field of academia.

Evolution relies on Bio-babble and so much metaphysical mumbo jumbo; I can't believe it was the theory of Darwin,, but more like Disney's Dumbo.

When it comes down to it,, these Scientists are nothing but trailer trash tweaking twits. Not only are they NOT the intelligent, freethinking Answer to Christianity, They epitomize the benchmark comparison of just how far God will go, Just how much he will forgive, Just how debased and dysfunctional a people can get and yet HE DIED FOR THEIR DISPICABLE SINS TOO. If anything requires a bigger leap of blind faith it is evolution because it relies on "spontaneous generation" like the idiotic idea believed thousands of years ago by ignorant people thinking mice would suddenly "appear” from piles of rags left in a dark damp place.

The paleontologists who so desperately search for fossil evidence of a “missing link,” in the hopes of once and for all being able to banish God and religion from the study of origins. They are blinded by their own ignorant belief in the religion of Darwinism.


Nothing and I DO mean nothing has changed with this sorry excuse of a science. Why they call it Science I have NO idea it is so utterly EASY to debunk and anyone saying things like Madd or Mel says to support it are only supporting it because it is the only thing they have to keep what little credibility they have left as believers in "Spontaneous life".

This so called science is nothing more then a pack of lies NO Science, NONE, has been more deceitful, more full of liar’s cheaters and crooks, as Evolution. Is it any wonder why though? I mean it has its moral base in Atheist philosophy.

The more I look the more I see these poor pathetic people as just children of the grave. Hopeless and in need of a lot of prayer from us.

These evolutionists, these, Irresponsible Dunderheads, are so busy trying to disprove God, they are missing out on the many cures of the future inleiu of cooking up a false past with fabricated facts we call lies.

Madd says they are "merely" a Mistake. Beloved, Christians,, these aren't mistakes,, they are the pre-meditated, manufactured manipulations of spiritual warfare manifest in Atheist's Religion of Evolution, and their agenda is carried out by its followers led by a carrot of sin.

They show self centered terminally self righteous intellectual snobbery while we can only see the sickness of their souls we offer a solution they are doggedly determined to deny.

They would lose their sole over a Science that has done nothing

But lie.

- Con







[edit on 2-3-2008 by Conspiriology]


Moderator Note:
Posting work written by others.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by dbates]

Originally posted by Conspiriology

*Clickety Click*

That's not evidence, con.

You made the claim that Osborn was an atheist, support it.

ABE: could be the funniest claim I've heard all day:

This so called science is nothing more then a pack of lies NO Science, NONE, has been more deceitful, more full of liar’s cheaters and crooks, as Evolution. Is it any wonder why though? I mean it has its moral base in Atheist philosophy.

...

They would lose their sole over a Science that has done nothing

But lie.

Remove that beam, dude.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by melatonin]

Heck. Never mind. I'll forsake my laziness and make a new thread after all. Ignore this comment.

[edit on 3/2/2008 by AshleyD]

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
1 Cor.1:18-19