Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

page: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
I seem to recall that O'Hair and her son ended up murdered and their bodies dumped into a 55-gallon drum. Nasty business all around. Good old money appeared to be the motive, however, and not religion. So I guess she's either burning in Hell now, or not.


Yes, it was something like that. One of the managers of American Atheists was fired from the organization, kidnapped the O'Hairs, made them get about $700,000 worth of gold coins, killed them, then buried the bodies. The twist was, then he was robbed of the gold coins and ended up dying in prison, too.




posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Another thing, from my understanding atheism has appeared and disappeared through the history of the world, never really surviving while other religions flourished, grew, and outnumbered the atheist groups.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
And AshleyD thats why crime doesn't pay


Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
Another thing, from my understanding atheism has appeared and disappeared through the history of the world, never really surviving while other religions flourished, grew, and outnumbered the atheist groups.


Thats only a half truth. Atheism has appeared throughout history, the cause of the disappearances were genocides by the current reigning religions. And no religion ever really survives, give it a few hundred years, 1000 tops and there will be no Christians, Muslims etc etc left. (God willing
) the reigning religion will be Atheism (as the current statistics say it will be) but it might be just another religion.
The difference between religion and mythology is time.

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Damien_Hell]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Damien_Hell
 


Not all of the causes were genocides like you claim, some of the people just got tired of being in the minority religion or they decided that atheism didn't have what they were looking for.
In reality, the number of individuals in a religion will be determined by what the people find more appealing to their personal beliefs. And I also refer to atheism as a religion of it's own, regardless of they claim.
A religion is a set of beliefs essentially, so therefore it is only logical that atheism be considered a religion.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe
 


Yah some Atheists say Atheism isn't a religion, but until they find another classification for it, its easier to refer to it as a religion



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Umm look up the definition Religion?

"An institution to express belief in a divine power;"

"A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. ..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

"belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe"
www.millicentrogers.org/glossary.htm

Doesn't religion have to be organised?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AncientVoid
 


Well like I said, find another classification, and I'll start calling it that. (Even though Atheism doesn't follow any of the definitions) I don't think religion has to be organized



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
As we enter the new millennium,there are

In 2004, in Dover Pennsylvania there was an attempt by the school board to introduce Intelligent Design Theory into the biology classrooms of the publicly funded schools.

As it happens, this was rejected strongly by the federal judge trying the case the costs of the case will surely deter others from rushing to follow the example of this board who were incidentally then promptly dropped by the voters.



Ongoing pressures to introduce non-evolutionary ideas into science curricula, especially into the science curricula of publicly funded schools. Had the board been aware of the Militant Atheist cult that was behind much of the opposition, they would have been better prepared. It wasn't Science that motivated the oppositions passion to fight what the board thought would be accepted without a problem, IT WAS ATHEISTS.

Lets get something clear about them first and foremost these are not "Just people who don't believe in GOD, in fact THEY HATE GOD. You can tell in the way they get so damn offended by that which doesn't exist but don't get nearly as militant with other mythology ie: you won't see Richard Dawkins fighting to keep the study of Greek Gods of Mythology out of Schools but you will the Christian GOD of American cultures. He doesn't know why but I am sure he could rationalize a "good reason" for it.

The reason to me is OBVIOUS and if you are a man with an ego like Dawkins,, you ARE a GOD in your own right. You see them applause at his terse commentary about Religion and Faith. He has an infectious charm nevertheless with his cute little English accent and his endogenously ambiguous tone. He doesn't offer hope regarding evolution and what it offers men and woman like Christianity does when it offers eternal life through faith. What Dawkins does is offer FINALITY to the questions that may be in those still on a spiritual quest or Mans search for meaning.

It is why he MUST fight to keep his monopoly on Science and defend his Religion of Evolution for it is the basis for his proof that without which Hope would still exist. This is why I believe if man ever figures out the aging process, or to be more accurate, a way for us to live forever, Religion would surely die out.

Dawkins in his own clever way has found a way for sin to resign itself to another postulate not quite as apealing but if it is based on what could be seen as the hard facts the grim reality that there IS nothing but death at the end there is no other truth but his,

Then we may as well live like we choose and has rationalized morality an issue along with it that has nothing to do with believing what is necessarily "just facts of life".

The battle is not yet over and things could get a lot worse before they get better, if indeed they will get better.

Already, there are members of the United States Supreme Court who have made it clear that they would receive sympathetically calls to push evolution from a preeminent place in science teaching, and with its recent turn to the right it would be foolish to assume that if a case came its way that Creationism or ID theory would be rejected as unsuitable for public school classroom use.

If additions are made, with present appointments, we could find that — nearly a century after the Scopes Trial, when the Fundamentalists were perceived as figures of fun — Creationism in one form or another finally takes its place in the classroom.

Fortunately at the moment, those opposed to Creationism are spending more of their energies quarreling among Christians fighting the opposition and giving us an idea just who they are.

No longer will people like those in Dover lose to a militant atheist movement who do all their deeds "under the radar" as Atheist author sam harris puts it.

Now we KNOW who they are, what they are about and what we have to do to put people like Dawkins in their proper perspective as people with an agenda to make Death the only hope man has as evolutions reason for being, effectively ending mans search for meaning.

No hope that something more then us exists out there.

That in our worst moments of pain and suffering and lonliness when everyone has let us down or when we feel un-loved un-cared for, hungry and homeless, we know we can always depend on the cold facts given by those nice sweet atheists to warm our hearts.

That death whether it be slow or fast is the only conclusion for the meaning to our lives.

If you want to choose such a reality you might as well just shoot yourself now. I mean,, really,, in time and space and a memory of you that may as well never have been to begin with knowing we all have the same self awareness just to have that same awareness taken away without anyone ever knowing it ever existed,,,when faced with these circumstances?

would it be any wonder why suicide is the Atheists

most logical answer for such people

- Con

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damien_Hell
Thats only a half truth. Atheism has appeared throughout history, the cause of the disappearances were genocides by the current reigning religions. And no religion ever really survives, give it a few hundred years, 1000 tops and there will be no Christians, Muslims etc etc left. (God willing
) the reigning religion will be Atheism (as the current statistics say it will be) but it might be just another religion.
The difference between religion and mythology is time.

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Damien_Hell]



You contend that no war in history has ever been created by non-belief. Yet, when you are told that 176 million people lost their lives in wars during the last century, created by non-believers like Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Hitler, to name only a few, you reply that those wars fought were fought in the name of ideology and not 'atheism' as atheists "…don't fly planes into buildings and expect us to equate that with OUR God and Christianity then wonder why your comment doesn't make sense to us and is seen as ignorant.

You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.

You continually argue that Hitler was a "real Christian" even when he and his fellow Nazis were slaughtering millions of people (and you "conveniently" ignore the very obvious distinction between someone claiming to be a Christian and someone actually living as a Christian, and the fact that the Nuremberg prosecutors denounced Nazism as fanatically ANTI-Christian!),

You adamantly refuse to recognise the historical fact that "scientific atheism" was both a foundational philosophical position and an actual policy of the Soviet Union from the time of Lenin on, responsible for untold persecution, torture, suffering, humiliation and death far in excess of the numbers of the "victims" of Christianity.


Atheists will tell us, 9 MILLION women were put to death as witches by Christian fanatics in pre-Enlightenment Europe. You assert that the 300 Protestants put to death under the reign of "Bloody Mary" in 16th century England stand as absolute proof of the inherent evil of Christianity but the tens upon tens of millions killed by Marxist regimes under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in the 20th century have absolutely NOTHING to do with the profound atheism inherent in these regimes.


It is your ignorance of history by constantly repeating grossly exaggerated numbers of victims of Christian Inquisitions, crusades and witchhunts dredged up from various unscholarly hate sites and passed off as historical fact just the same way you do here and in your post

You want any respect for your assertions

try using FACTS

- Con



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
so therefore it is only logical that atheism be considered a religion.


You must understand the geo political aspirations of this movement and why THEY MUST deny being a religion. They intend to use separation of church and state to systematically destroy religion from this country and long term objectives are the world by making Religious political people rare in politics if at all.

They can not achieve this as a religious movement without the stealthy cleverness a non religion affords them.

- Con



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology

In 2004, in Dover Pennsylvania there was an attempt by the school board to introduce Intelligent Design Theory into the biology classrooms of the publicly funded schools.

...

It wasn't Science that motivated the oppositions passion to fight what the board thought would be accepted without a problem, IT WAS ATHEISTS.


Poppycock, con.

Ken Miller absolutely eviscerated intelligent design on the stand. He's a catholic. Many of the people who worked behind the Kitzmiller case are also christians, including Wes Elsberry, Nick Matzke and others associated with Panda's thumb and the NCSE.

Intelligent design is not science, and should never be taught in a science class. Teach it in philosophy, history of science, religious classes. But keep this religiously motivated teleology out of science classes.


you won't see Richard Dawkins fighting to keep the study of Greek Gods of Mythology out of Schools but you will the Christian GOD of American cultures.


This time, piffle.

Dawkins actually supports religious education in schools in the UK, when done properly (i.e. comparative rather than indoctrination), of course. You have no idea what you are talking about here.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damien_Hell


Comparing Communists to Atheists. Thats like comparing a wasp to a fly. They have many similarities, but ones dangerous the other isn't (if you need help on that one its the communists that are dangerous)


I am not comparing atheists to communists or wasps to flys. When you learn to understand my post in the proper context it is given then let me know k




Who has compared 9/11 to Christians?? Its the Muslims who did that. And we can easily blame that on them, why? Because the Quaran tells you to kill the infidels (me, you, any non-Muslim) Now where there to be a mass anti-gay stoning, then we could blame the Christians cause the bible tells you to stone the gays. PLZ point out where in the Origin of Species does it tell you to kill anyone



Again you don't understand the contextual differences that are given. This is a common tactic of Atheists to lump ALL religions together as it is given in the many books and videos by Sam Harris Richard Dawkins uses this exact analogy in God Delusion



PLZ point out where in the Origin of Species does it tell you to kill anyone


If I subscribed to the origin of species I'd have to say the fact that WE DO Kill each other is just part of our evolutionary consequences.

Some people are alive merely because it is against the law to kill them


So you failed history then? WWI and WWII are too obvious to waste my time on. The Civil War would have been avoided if the South hadn't been using the bible as defense for enslaving the blacks for so long. Therefore its Christianity's fault as it says SEVERAL times, that slavery is ok


No as a matter of fact I always got straight A's in History and one of the reasons for that was,, again KNOWING the authors intentions and not using discontextual diffrences to create double standards or contradictions in terms. You saying WW's 1 and 2 were a waste of time for you to respond doesn't prove me wrong but it does you by default. secondly the Bible doesn't always endorse what the bible says and in the case of slavery since God gave us the free will to govern our own lives and we governed them into slavery then yes that may not be Gods will but it is ours whether God likes it our not . The best he can do is give scripture on having them treating them etc.



Hitler wasn't a Christian, he was a roman Catholic. (Either way the bible "Justified" all those murders)


Who is the God of the Roman Catholics? Then after you figure that out you can show me where the next part of your post is substantiated by Scripture. This ought to be good.


Does ignorance come naturally to you or do you practice it


Ignorance is the default knowledge we all start with so I would say it comes Naturally. Again I was NOT comparing communism to Atheism the distinction was that they were Atheist forms of Government where Religion was something you didn't see in the open.

A Society of Atheists killing millions are just what it says no matter what form of Government they are called the FACT is they were atheists.




- Con

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Poppycock, con.

Ken Miller absolutely eviscerated intelligent design on the stand. He's a catholic. Many of the people who worked behind the Kitzmiller case are also christians, including Wes Elsberry, Nick Matzke and others associated with Panda's thumb and the NCSE.

Intelligent design is not science, and should never be taught in a science class. Teach it in philosophy, history of science, religious classes. But keep this religiously motivated teleology out of science classes.



Yes I see as part of Philosophy ID could be but calling someone catholic or any other person Baptized into a religious category does a Christian NOT make. As usual Mel makes good points on all other areas

Evolution is NOT science either until you put an "ology" on it, it will remain a theory that uses scientifc methods to substantiate it or refute it but until then don't tell me you use evolution to substantiate astronomy

It is no more science then ID is. Science and Evolution are two separate and distinct meanings

Do you not believe your "anti relgious atheism" is without motive?

If I'm paying taxes for public schools that is all the motive I need.

- Con

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Baby Got Book?



www.whiteboydj.com...

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavlovsdog

I've looked thru some of the threads that you have been posting in and have found these links to the Atheist websites that you speak of. Sites of this type are of concern to me -

Could you please point them out


Clickety Click


That first link is for those atheists that are always saying "Please show us your proof" It's like this, you want proof? How bad do you want it?



They invariably won't want it when their are always conditions to getting proof or evidence even cops have to pay off a tipster from time to time on TV lol. If you want proof God says how in the Bible but will an Atheist take the path?

Some of the best I have seen are from sites where I have posted some of the more telling incite into differences of Christians and Atheists and their are distinct differences from the moderation of such sites to the individual posts.


Science absolutely needs to destroy religion, not with force or violence but with unending ridicule. Religion is primitive anti-science nonsense full of arbitrary rules, inconsistencies and irrational garbage. Religion is also one of the worst if not the worst human concept of all time, it is responsible for holy wars, crusades, inquistions, witch trials (which led to rapes, burnings, drownings, hangings), my-god-is-better-than-your-god intolerance, child molestations, 9/11, suicide bombings, transit system bombings, among other atrocities. Religious fanatics are among the most evil people on the planet with their hypocritical lies and phony baloney "morals". Even religious people who aren’t fanatics are fools, how does one rationalize ludicrous beliefs without a single shred of evidence against modern science and technology ?



Religion should be ridiculed at every turn and all of its many misdeeds should be pointed out whenever and whereever they happen and religion should be removed from ALL aspects of government (and at least in the U.S. so should the current megalomaniac misadministration). Children should be well educated in science and taught that ALL religions are primitive beliefs and have no useful place in modern society. Brainwashing a child with religion is mental child abuse.

gods4suckers.net...



The above quote assures me of many things the bible talks about concerning man and whether you read younger peoples posts or older, you rarely find the vitriolic childish and sometimes threatening display to the inner thoughts of violence or hatred you see when Atheists post. Yet they are constantly saying Religion causes all the violence even after such ideas are proven wrong time and time again, they insist on repeating the same dogmatic lies. This is one reason I ignore their asking for proof, and is why God doesn't reveal himself to those that won't seek him unless they come as a child. When he says I knew you before you were born I knew you to the number of the hairs on your head.

I guess he wasn't kidding, would you bother with such people who argue his wisdom merely because they can't observe what they won't do to see? It's like asking someone with lousy vision to put his glasses on but he refuses because people will call him four eyes or make fun of him at school. That must be how God sees the Atheist.


.this is pretty much a pipe dream. To say you believe that the world would all hold hands without religion is a strange faith. Is it based on science at all? No. It is just that….a belief, based on faith in nothing real or substantial. Was the cold war about religion? No. It was about the conflict of human ideals. How many died in Vietnam on both sides? Korea? WW2? WW1? You say man would be better off and get along? Where is the scientific proof of that? Show me a link, give me the facts. Isn’t that what we do here? I do remember a nation that chose political atheism in it’s separation of church and state policy. They decided that all religion must go, and many were slaughtered, sent to work camps, otherwise persecuted. That was the Soviet Union. The model of what men are capable of, with or without the excuse of "In the name of God". Let’s face the real facts, we humans tend to dominate, control and subject others, and that is our history. Stamp out all Religion, and it will go on till some Gov’t takes control and ordains a prefrontal labotamy for every human except the elite or something. I base that on history, not pipe dream pie in the sky "the world would just be so much better if…." Barny the dino mentality. Sorry if this is harsh, but it drives me crazy to hear this psuedosocial engineering. Now if you will excuse me, I must go watch Teletubbies or the Wiggles for some new earth saving ideas.




That one was by a believer I would guess and he doesn't realize how close to the truth he is when talking about atheists who think theist have this memeplex sort of virus and that atheism is the cure. Sounds so much like Scientology it's silly.



I have nothing against science, I have owned business and have been a software developer for many years. I have always had a keen interest in science. I am most interested in quantum science and subjects like







Absolute Zero, String theory, Quantum Mechanics etc, have proven one thing to me that seems to be all over the Bible. That yes Science is wonderful but Science has proven one thing beyond any doubt, that things like science where Astronomy and physics where we discover completely new kinds of states of matter never seen before can prove to other sciences that maybe they need to rethink their silly postulates being so afraid of religion touching it that it keeps them from really knowing anything at all and where Quantum sciences such as Quantum mechanics where one's and zero's can be both at the same time or that atoms themselves can communicate. Bose-Einstein Condensation in a gas: a new form of matter at the coldest temperatures in the universe.

Predicted 1924 Created 1995 is science writing its own bible in a form of old testament predictions making them patent in the new testament. Where it falls short is where the Bible Rocks and that is giving the added references to who and when they are to be fulfilled details that Bose and Einstein didn't have any idea about in there books about later discoveries. Those that I think will be the bane of evolutions new discoveries are those that sciences like Quantum Theory and Astro Physics are beginning to separate themselves from the mundane and has people like Steven Hawking's wondering whether or not Science isn't seeing the face of God.

That their are forms of matter out there that science has not even contemplated yet and that Sciences that trivialize God are explained in the bible as the Science of fools. That just because Science figures something out doesn't trivialize God,
It explains him.
That a Science that says there is no God has just admitted to its own bias thus its limitations, placed on it because of issues with Religion.

That religion is the study of a creator who mastered all Sciences Medicine, Philosophy, Chemistry, Physics and Jesus Healed the sick, was called master teacher, turned water into wine fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and fish to prove who he was, that it was his power and mastery OVER these things that we want to understand that a Science which has not figured it our that since it doesn't know it is not true or that it must be some kind of trick when it was to prove who he was.

Things never change and God knows that as we all do and is why he suggests FAITH for those whose desires it is to know him. Whether we use Science, Philosophy, the Bible or the testimony of God in our lives as told to others,

it is our own testament that possibilities exist and that with God,,,all things are Possible,

whether Science can believe it,

or not.

- Con



[edit on 18-1-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by AshleyD
Here's some fun information:

American Atheists founded by the Fred Phelps of atheism, Madalyn Murray O'Hair.


I seem to recall that O'Hair and her son ended up murdered and their bodies dumped into a 55-gallon drum. Nasty business all around. Good old money appeared to be the motive, however, and not religion. So I guess she's either burning in Hell now, or not.


Yeah,
I knew the good old atheist that killed them. when he was growing up he used to bully my cousins and try to drown them in the pool. he would strangle their kittens to death. Bad, that one. (David Waters)

[edit on 18-1-2008 by sizzle]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Evolution is NOT science either until you put an "ology" on it, it will remain a theory that uses scientifc methods to substantiate it or refute it but until then don't tell me you use evolution to substantiate astronomy


The theory of evolution is science. It does everyting we expect of a scientific theory.

Why would I use evolution to substantiate astronomy? That appears rather a silly suggestion. One is biology, the other physics. That would be a bit like using geology to 'substantiate' psychology.


Do you not believe your "anti relgious atheism" is without motive?

If I'm paying taxes for public schools that is all the motive I need.

- Con


Sorry, con, you don't get to determine what is and is not science. This is why people with your sort of motivation will keep getting their asses handed to them in court, you don't understand what science actually is. I hear Florida is next in line to waste tax-payers dosh in a religious crusade against science, like Dover did. And you worry about $$$$$$, heh. Yeah, give it to lawyers in a vacuous war on science.

Evolution is as much a science as Germ theory, or any scientific theory you can name. It makes falsifiable and testable predictions just like any other scientific theory, it has stood its ground for almost 150 years.

Hmm, 'do you not believe your anti-religious atheism without motive'? Ignoring the confusing double negative. Yeah, it has motive. I see organised religion as detrimental and a hindrance to society, and just plain wishful-thinking. It is a dehumanising, ignorant, mind-controlling pile of piffle, spread like a fear- and guilt-inducing virus to little children before they even have half a decent frontal lobe and can think for themselves.

But I won't stop you transmitting your blood sacrifice-based virus to your children, that's not in my nature. Just keep your mucky fingers out of science classrooms - we'll keep burning them every time. I even support comparative RE classes (my son loves them), so you can tell your little iron-age stories to kids there



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Why would I use evolution to substantiate astronomy? That appears rather a silly suggestion. One is biology, the other physics. That would be a bit like using geology to 'substantiate' psychology.



Science is NOT evolution but Evolution is "A" part of the evolutionary process of Biology. Forgive my presumption Mel, but I am wary of Atheists using the word Science synonmously with Evolution hence the analogy of using evolution to substantiate another Science.

I will expect the same exactness in its definition as you do in its theory as to say Evolution is A science doesn't give me the same reason to make the charge about it not being science as "evolution IS science"

When I think of Science I think of the physical observations and measurements made to understand a phenomen. Perhaps equally important is what Science is NOT

Science is NOT evidence: theories aren't evidence, and the opinions of even the most learned scientists aren't evidence.




I hear Florida is next in line to waste tax-payers dosh in a religious crusade against science, like Dover did. And you worry about $$$$$$, heh. Yeah, give it to lawyers in a vacuous war on science.



Lets make one thing clear here Mel,, Had Atheism and its attack on Religion where intructions to ridicule it and its followers weren't part of it I would agree and if you can't see how that makes it personal then I don't know what to tell you other then that is what it has become.


Yeah, it has motive. I see organised religion as detrimental and a hindrance to society, and just plain wishful-thinking. It is a dehumanising, ignorant, mind-controlling pile of piffle, spread like a fear- and guilt-inducing virus to little children before they even have half a decent frontal lobe and can think for themselves.

But I won't stop you transmitting your blood sacrifice-based virus to your children, that's not in my nature. Just keep your mucky fingers out of science classrooms - we'll keep burning them every time. I even support comparative RE classes (my son loves them), so you can tell your little iron-age stories to kids there



Cute mel,, *sigh*

Science and religion are very different, both in what they try to do and in the methods they use to accomplish their objectives. Science trys to explain origin, nature, the physically detectable universe.

Religion on the other hand trys to explain the meaning of human existence, to define the nature of the human soul, to justify the existence of an afterlife for humans, and to maintain devotion to a diety or God . Their goals and objectives are different.

Thier methods,, again, are very different.

Science uses the observation of physical processes to answer its questions and relies on modern humans to make inferences from those observations.

Conversely, Religion uses divine inspiration, interpretation of ancient texts, and personal insight as the source of the answers to their questions. Science and religion are not and should not be in competition in either their methods or their objectives because accomplish different things.

Regardless of their inherent differences, science and religion are distinct but mutually compatible paradigms which Christianity was more then willing to accept.

It is when Science attacks Religion in Schools where Religion doesn't have a voice to defend itself that we have a problem and Religion will find a way to solve it.

When a proponent like yourself speaks to it and us in language I can only describe as nothing less then the monosyllabic diatribe of a smack talking 5th grader, one begins to wonder,, are all science people this intelligent? Are they all this socially inept?

Do I want my kids in something where they think being smarter then any of those believers is by their creative use of disparaging remarks they can make or how many expletives they can use to describe and deride them into submission to science?

You might think that works but common sense says it won't sell it.

Whether you think Religion is a Brain virus or child abuse I can look at that post and resign myself that "What" YOU are and what YOU represent as the Scientific community using your post as any clue, is nothing more then a bunch of foul mouthed brats that think they're (no pun) Gods gift to mankind.

Mel,, I love Science and I wish I could explain what a spiritual epiphaney is without you having to ask for it in they way it seems it has to be,, but I can't. I don't make the rules that way and believe me being a Christian isn't easy.

You think I don't know what kind of Opinions of me are made when I talk about this stuff? You don't think I know people like you think I am crazy?

I can't ignore what happened to me and what it is or how it changed my life. It's like trying to articulate some of the other things in life we can't put into words but we all know what it feels like. hehe

I am seriously dismayed at what I see out there among Atheists and whether they feel justified or not, it is only going to make a bigger problem I can assure you. I was reading a recent essay by Sam Harris "On Faith" and he seems to be re-thinnking many of the problems that are obviously already happening.

I have seen Religion be a Friend and I have seen it be an Enemy but BEGGING for the latter is just what I am afraid they are gonna get.

That we will get what we Pray for

while you get what you wish for

I'm afraid it ain't pretty

for either of us.

- Con

[edit on 18-1-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Science is NOT evolution but Evolution is "A" part of the evolutionary process of Biology. Forgive my presumption Mel, but I am wary of Atheists using the word Science synonmously with Evolution hence the analogy of using evolution to substantiate another Science.


Oh, OK. We can play semantics if you like. Evolutionary theory is a part of science, it is a scientific theory, and a fundamental theory in biology.


Science is NOT evidence: theories aren't evidence, and the opinions of even the most learned scientists aren't evidence.


Science is based on evidence. Scientific theories explain the evidence. The opinions of scientists are opinions. Unless they are based on evidence and theories, then they are talking science.


Lets make one thing clear here Mel,, Had Atheism and its attack on Religion where intructions to ridicule it and its followers weren't part of it I would agree and if you can't see how that makes it personal then I don't know what to tell you other then that is what it has become.


Heh, what an attack. Some laugh at your silliness. Maybe showing your position look ridiculous.

Oh noes!


Cute mel,, *sigh*

Science and religion are very different, both in what they try to do and in the methods they use to accomplish their objectives. Science trys to explain origin, nature, the physically detectable universe.


But I wasn't talking about science. You were asking why I hold to 'anti-religion atheism' or something like that.

I answered. It was a brutally honest answer. But, again, I would never support forcing my opinion on you. I would never force you to give up your faith.

There is a place for your faith, and it is not the science class. It is in your churches and your home, maybe on your TV channels. It could even be faith schools, like we have in the UK (although I dislike them).

But there are other places it doesn't belong. I really don't care if you want to spend sundays in a church, send messages to omnipotent things, or believe the world is 6000 years old. That's your business.

Science is science's business.


It is when Science attacks Religion in Schools where Religion doesn't have a voice to defend itself that we have a problem and Religion will find a way to solve it.


Science doesn't give a damn about your religion. That's the beauty of it. It just doesn't care. It allows people of all faiths and non-faith to study nature and advance knowledge.

Science is not attacking religion in schools. This is quite the projection here.


When a proponent like yourself speaks to it and us in language I can only describe as nothing less then the monosyllabic diatribe of a smack talking 5th grader, one begins to wonder,, are all science people this intelligent? Are they all this socially inept?


Nope, I gave you my motives. Isn't that what you asked for?

And now you criticise me for it?

Come on, con, give me a break. So far you've spouted all kinds of nonsense about atheists from Dawkins wanting to wipe out religious education from schools, to Dover being an atheist crusade.

That's was my opinion. Funny thing is, I still won't act to stop you doing what you want. Just keep it out of my face, all I want is freedom from your virus. I want science unpolluted from your religious motivations.

What you do in your house and church is entirely your business.


I have seen Religion be a Friend and I have seen it be an Enemy but BEGGING for the latter is just what I am afraid they are gonna get.


No, con. We aren't forcing our stuff into the classroom. We aren't asking for atheism to have a foothold in classes where it doesn't belong.

One thing I have learnt is that there is no debate with radical theists. They want their fingers in everything. From politics to the science class. This approach needs every bit of ridicule it can get. These people will not be reasoned with. How can you reason with someone on a supposed god-given mission to convert the world and twist society to their own ends?

Much better than burning people at the stake. You see, on rare occasions I'll use ridicule, I don't think it's the best option though, but I likes to have lolz on teh internetz


The best approach we have is just giving kids a grounded high level education. And you know it. This is why you have to homeschool your kiddies, get 'em young with their supple minds. But that's not enough, you also need to twist public schools to your own ends. Education is the best anti-viral we have.



[edit on 18-1-2008 by melatonin]





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join