Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

Good Original Post, you shoulda used Hitler too though because he actually wrote it down that jews were close to pure ape, blacks and Chinese nearly 100% ape and so on. And ole Hitler thought he could help man make the next "Evolutionary Leap" by getting the apes out of he gene pool. Evolution is NOT scientifically backed nor ever been shown or proven, although they do like to try to link the THEORY of evolution to science, it can not be.
ONE MUST "BELIEVE" in evolution, thereby bringing in "FAITH" and "BELIEF" to their thinking and I am sorry to say but Faith and belief in something is a Religion, evolution and atheism is a religion.

Sorry to break your bubbles, and I won't argue with fools and morons, there are over 10 groups that have offered millions in cash for any "EVIDENCE" of evolution and funny how that money has never been collected by anyone.

I will say this though,it is usually those taught they came from animals that act most like them to their fellow Man, excuse me, ANIMAL.


P.S. - Darrow lost the Scopes monkey trial and the conviction and fine stuck to that defendant teacher, THAT IS HISTORICAL FACT also one they are trying to airbrush away as if Darrow won that trial.

[edit on 3/23/2008 by theindependentjournal]

Random thoughts in no particular order:

I challenge the assertion that Buddhism is a religion.

It would seem that at the core of any religious linked atrocity are people acting in contradiciton to the tennents of whatever dogma is attached to the religion. How does that equate to anything other than crazy dudes using the levers of religion for personal gain?

I was raised a cathoilic and later lapsed. I don't really think about whether is a GOD or not. It just never comes up in my day to day. I think that makes me atheistic. Does that mean i have an agenda? Just curious. Are there meetings I should have been going to all this time?

For me it comes down to where your moral and ethical core comes from. Reading the headlines and the threads it seems that those waving the flag of this religion or that religion are identifying with a splinter group of humanity with an externally imposed moral/ethical system. As such, there is nothing in that view that makes a human intrinsically good/bad. Further, there does seem to be an autocratic thread throughout.

Top down control of a group of people that have checked-out of self-reflection and handed the reigns of their morality over to the guy on the top.

Are not atheists simply those who do not feel the need to be dictated to? Is is possible for someone who has handed over a portion of their rationality to an autoratic ideology to conceive of a system that does not subscribe to a similar structure? I think that is what leads to the misguided attempts to cast atheism as a religion. To do otherwise would require the abstracted critical thought that religion rejects for its own survival.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by wytworm]

reply to post by wytworm


you said:

....it seems that those waving the flag of this religion or that religion are identifying with a splinter group of humanity with an externally imposed moral/ethical system

Thomas Jefferson referred to himself as a man in attendance of a religion of 1.

He had this to say on the subject of the teachings of Christ

"But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, 'something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell.'" (Ltr. to Adams, May 5, 1817,Writings,A.A.Lipscomb,15:108-109.)"

www.sullivan-county.com...

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Evolution is NOT scientifically backed nor ever been shown or proven, although they do like to try to link the THEORY of evolution to science, it can not be.
ONE MUST "BELIEVE" in evolution, thereby bringing in "FAITH" and "BELIEF" to their thinking and I am sorry to say but Faith and belief in something is a Religion, evolution and atheism is a religion.

This is always a fascinating argument as it is founded seemingly on an assertion that the concept evolution was made up out of whole cloth by some fiction writer 100 years ago.

I always wonder what the person is really intending to say with these types of statements. I think what they are intending to do is reject the thesis of common ancestry.

It makes no sense to me to ask for evidence of evolution itself, as the evidence it too available and obvious. It seems the equivalent of asking for proof of 'air' since we can't see it.

As an example, if there is no evolution, why do bacteria become resistant to anti-biotics? Does the sight of people dying due to 'super-bugs' count as evidence? Is god killing them? If so is evolution his weapon?

It seems to be something of a motif for a certain persuasion of 'christians' that they must see enemies everywhere: athiests, devil worshippers, the devil and increasingly, muslims.

Are they paranoid? We see threads like this one and 'Is there a global conspiracy against christians?' and 'Are christians suppressed?'

Another way to approach the questions is 'Are Christians Paranoid', or 'Do christians take themselves way too seriously?' or how about 'Are christian extremists a threat to peace?'

Christians appear to want a clear-cut enemy. A simple threat they can understand. But the world is more complicated than that. It is not black and white. There is no conspiracy against christians and there is no devil as christians portray it. It's too simplistic and immature.

Originally posted by wytworm

As an example, if there is no evolution, why do bacteria become resistant to anti-biotics? Does the sight of people dying due to 'super-bugs' count as evidence? Is god killing them? If so is evolution his weapon?

Pretty much everyone believes that micro evolution is scientifically proven. Where the problem appears to arise is in macro evolution.

One example I heard about was: a deer of one species was taken to a different climate and territory and after some time, began exhibiting the same traits as the indigenous deer of the new area, which basically suggests that only 1 species of deer was the founder of all species of deer. 1 whale becomes all whales. 1 human male becomes all human males. We adapt, rather than evolve. Think of it like a foundational computer program that can be used in many different types of applications (this is DNA), in which one application is set aside to do one job, and another is set aside to do another job, and so on. Each type adapts to the input given it, but it never becomes a different program unless the programmer completely rewrites the shell.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by wytworm

 

you said:

....it seems that those waving the flag of this religion or that religion are identifying with a splinter group of humanity with an externally imposed moral/ethical system

Thomas Jefferson referred to himself as a man in attendance of a religion of 1.

He had this to say on the subject of the teachings of Christ

"But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, 'something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell.'" (Ltr. to Adams, May 5, 1817,Writings,A.A.Lipscomb,15:108-109.)"

www.sullivan-county.com...

I am replying to a quote with a quote. I will leave it to the reader to reflect upon what effect posting only the latter portion of Jefferson's thought has on one's understanding of the point he intended to make:

If, by religion, we are to understand Sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.' But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism, and deism taught by Jesus of Nazareth in which all agree, then, without it, this would be, as you say, 'Something not fit to be named, even indeed a hell.

Originally posted by rizla
It seems to be something of a motif for a certain persuasion of 'christians' that they must see enemies everywhere: athiests, devil worshippers, the devil and increasingly, muslims.

Are they paranoid? We see threads like this one and 'Is there a global conspiracy against christians?' and 'Are christians suppressed?'

Another way to approach the questions is 'Are Christians Paranoid', or 'Do christians take themselves way too seriously?' or how about 'Are christian extremists a threat to peace?'

Christians appear to want a clear-cut enemy. A simple threat they can understand. But the world is more complicated than that. It is not black and white. There is no conspiracy against christians and there is no devil as christians portray it. It's too simplistic and immature.

I am with you on this but would subsitute the word 'Christians' with a more awkward 'followers of a religion'. I think it is a self-defensive requirement to shore up the belief system against reality.

Originally posted by wytworm

I am replying to a quote with a quote. I will leave it to the reader to reflect upon what effect posting only the latter portion of Jefferson's thought has on one's understanding of the point he intended to make:

If, by religion, we are to understand Sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.' But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism, and deism taught by Jesus of Nazareth in which all agree, then, without it, this would be, as you say, 'Something not fit to be named, even indeed a hell.

Thanks, I think the point is the same, don't you?
He thought the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth were sublime and that he and his fellow men were in agreement on that. See the guy was a bible scholar. He didn't just take someone else's word for it .. .he got down into it, to figure out what it meant, what was right, what was wrong and etc., for himself. He saw Jesus as a philanthropist and a deist, which is his right as a thinking human being to do. On the other hand, he couldn't abide Paul or the Book of Revelation. To each his own, yes? you can't extract from the words of Thomas jefferson's disdain for organized religion, that he was an enemy of Christianity, only that the coin had two faces, one sublime and the other not. But without the coin, this would be hell.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by undo]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


First I would like to state, for the record, that I am an Atheist, I am an Historian and I have never brushed anything, at least worthy of mentioning on this board. I have taught Contemporary Christianity in a Catholic University and have never been persecuted by anybody nor have I persecuted any students for being religious or non religious.

I have arrived at this interesting post far too late, for that I am sorry. I would just like to make a few brief points if I may:

1) Raising your child in a religious belief amounts to "child abuse". I wouldn't go that far but, in the least it is brainwashing. You should, in my opinion, only be introduced to a religion, or an ideology, which by the way use the same mechanisms and thought processes, at an age when you are able to independently decide and make up your own mind. This process, by the way, is used in many religious denominations. The same rational applies to communism and Atheism. No child should be told that there is a god or that no gods exist until he is able to understand the concept.

2) As for the subject of the Inquisitions, note the plural, they are an historical facts that concern only religious people, and not atheists. All Inquisitions, be they Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and so on, where perpetrated against religious people, to be precise against "heretics". They where mostly certain Christian organizations persecuting other Christian organizations, or individuals. The fact of the matter is that the USA probably own their existence to these persecutions, that ultimately culminated in the religious wars in Europe. People didn't only flee Kings, they also fled the Pope. The Salem like episodes and the witch hunts had, officially, very little to do with Inquisitions.

3) As for Communism, it is nothing more then organized religion in disguise and as very little to do with Marx or even, for that fact Lenin. It is a centralized imposition of an dogmatic idea. Stalinist as you might see had it's god almighty (Stalin), had it's Saints, notably the mausoleum of Lenin, to whom the people had to pay homage, just like in every religion. Note that the procession to visit the Holy Spirit of Lenin in the Red Square is no different to any religious procession to any other sanctuary. Stalin, like a god, was omnipresent and omniscient and developed a Personality cult that you only find in organized religion, and is opposite to every Marxist teachings. Stalin was a brutal psychopathic killer but he was not stupid. Due to the profound religiousness of the Russian people, at the time still in a medieval mind set, he recognized that he needed a god to replace a god, if he where to consolidate his power.
Mao was exactly the same, or better, worst. He created a "Cultural Revolution" in which he effectively imposed a "bible", his little red book, as the only acceptable source of knowledge that rendered all other knowledge obsolete and heretical.

4) As for Darwin, his "theory", as you choose to call it, is scientific proof, only not in the matter that he put it. He was the first so he made many mistakes and, in todays word, he is considered as a pioneer but most of his theories have long been corrected. Science is an never ending process, consider each scientist as a person that managed to climb another step on an unending stairway. Their is no Truth in science, just temporary evolutions that focus the picture of human knowledge a little clearer. Even if Darwinism was the absolute truth it would in no way "kill the gods", a god, or the gods could have simply created the first being on earth and then directed it's evolution ad infinitum. Most of Darwin's anti-religious thoughts, or actions , just came from a time when all science was persecuted and ridiculed.

** To be continued, I am so very sorry but I have to leave know **

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by wytworm

As an example, if there is no evolution, why do bacteria become resistant to anti-biotics? Does the sight of people dying due to 'super-bugs' count as evidence? Is god killing them? If so is evolution his weapon?

Pretty much everyone believes that micro evolution is scientifically proven. Where the problem appears to arise is in macro evolution.

One example I heard about was: a deer of one species was taken to a different climate and territory and after some time, began exhibiting the same traits as the indigenous deer of the new area, which basically suggests that only 1 species of deer was the founder of all species of deer. 1 whale becomes all whales. 1 human male becomes all human males. We adapt, rather than evolve. Think of it like a foundational computer program that can be used in many different types of applications (this is DNA), in which one application is set aside to do one job, and another is set aside to do another job, and so on. Each type adapts to the input given it, but it never becomes a different program unless the programmer completely rewrites the shell.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by undo]

Ok, lets go with that. So what the intent was we are thinking is to express that although Micro-evolution is 'backed by science', Macro-evolution is not. Does it mean to imply that some deity working on creating the universe was 'intelligent' enough to 'design' microevolutionary processes but was stumped when it came to speciation? 'This is too hard...POOF you are a deer, POOF you are a human..etc etc.

Following your application corollary, it isn't that challenging to extend it to consider the integration of 10s or hundreds of silo applications into an integrated system. That system would be analogous to the evolution of a cell into a molecule which down the line combines with others to make a deer...etc etc.

Another interesting counter is that there are now examples of lateral genetic transfer (genes crossing the taxonomic boundaries individually or as part of symbiotic organisms that are taken into the "host" taxon's cellular machinery). It is considered to be rather common now, although previously overlooked.

reply to post by NorthWolfe CND

They where mostly certain Christian organizations persecuting other Christian organizations, or individuals.

Thank you for bringing this up. It's so often used as evidence that the Inquistion was against unbelievers in the sense of "atheists" or "pagans" or
some other religion, when in fact, it was basically an attempt to stop the spread of
of pope-less christianity.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by undo]

reply to post by wytworm


Well to prevent the thread from wandering into an evolutionary debate, I will only respond that I believe there's indication that adaptation is only in response to environment but that it doesn't rewrite the program, simply provides slightly different input for the original program. Like a guy wearing a pair of pants, is still the same guy if he's wearing a pair of bermuda shorts, scientifically-speaking. He hasn't changed into a different species, merely adapted to his environment

And the fittest is love

reply to post by undo

history proves that the fittest is always the one with the most brute force, financial security, and all the other "natural" benefits of the natural world. so naturally, as has been proven in countless societies down threw the history of humankind, some members are of less survival importance than others. two of those are women and children.

Ma'am, I am delighted to be able to tell you -- and when I explain why I hope you will be delighted too -- that you have greatly misunderstood natural selection. That is not how it works.

Understand, first, that 'survival of the fittest' is a bit of a tautology. 'Fittest' doesn't mean physically strongest, sturdiest, fastest and most aggressive. That is a traditional human, indeed male, concept of fitness. It is not what Darwin meant by fitness, nor is it what evolutionists today mean by it.

The 'fittest' member of a species is simply the one best fitted to survive and reproduce. In NeoDarwinian theory, it refers to the specimen best able to ensure the survival of its genes into a third generation. In other words, the 'fittest' member of a species is the one that manages to have the most living grandchildren.

Fitness -- 'selective fitness' is what evolutionists call it -- is determined by an organism's ability to make the best of its environment and its mating opportunities, with a view to perpetuating its genes. This may involve being strong, fast, aggressive, etc., and in male human sexual competition these are the qualities traditionally prized by the competitors, but by themselves they are useless. Other qualities, too, are required.

Remember the qualities a mediaeval knight was expected to have, according to bardic tradition? Strength and courage were certainly among them. But there were others. Remember them? Justice, mercy, generosity, kindness, fidelity... Why? Because mediaeval power politics demanded these qualities? I think not. This ancient knightly code -- the Franks got it from the Romans, who got it from the Greeks, who got it from heaven knows who --- outlined what made a man noble, not only in his fellow-men's eyes, but in women's.

In doing so, it outlined very precisely, for men who had the wit to understand, what was required of a man who desired lasting genetic posterity.

This is how it works: a strong brutal merciless man may rape any number of women, get them pregnant and go on to the next victim, but the chances of any of those sprogs growing up right -- or growing up at all -- and having sprogs of their own is fairly slim. To begin with, a woman who raises her children alone has a harder time of it than one who does it with a man around to help, so children are more at risk and may not survive. Or they may grow up very messed up, and find it difficult to secure mates of their own because of it. As a result, faithful and generous men tend to pass their genes on to more grandchildren than selfish, brutal ones do. Kindness and mercy are obviously useful in dealing with both a wife and a child, especially if one is physically stronger than they are.

Besides, women have their strength and power too. Rape is common, I grant you, but consensual sex is much commoner. Most men aren't interested in rape anyway. They want more of a woman than that, just like a woman wants more of a man. And guess what? We evolved that way -- because it was to our selective advantage to do so.

The 'fittest' male is healthy, long-lived, strong and active; he is also kind, empathetic, helpful, supportive... and loving.

Yes: love, too, is a sign of fitness, of having what it takes to survive.

--------
Recommended reading: The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature by Geoffrey Miller.

Yes: love, too, is a sign of fitness, of having what it takes to survive.

Can you describe it with science?
Thanks

So do any of you know of a species actually giving birth to an entirely different species. I don't believe that is the case. I don't know about some of you but I am not a decendent of a monkey. It is clear as day that there is something that seperates humans from the animal world, something intangable that can not be explained by science. Are we that arrogant to think that we can know all of the secrets to the universe. Do we view ourselves as gods.

With regards to some of you who say attrocities have not been committed in the name of athiesm. The nazis wanted to slay an entire people because of their race and faith. Jews as a race were not the only ones in concentration camps. Christians were too. This goes for Joseph Stalin as well, I have family members who came here after living under the rule of this man. He killed christians because a "faith" underminded the communist society. Thus both killed in the name of no-faith, or athiesim.

reply to post by pubbing


It seems that in his day, Darwin and his colleagues viewed other, non-western cultures as uncivilized barbarians, akin to animals. This was probably the realllly basic foundation for his ideas. And it grew from there. Even some of the scholarly writings of the jews in that time frame were not exactly people friendly, referring to the goyim (gentile) females as "cows." (not in the sense of "fat" but in the sense of servile, uncivilized, animals).

In the writings of one of his colleagues, we see the individual referring to black people as 75% human (and of course, the implication being, that the other 25% was monkey).

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by wytworm

I am replying to a quote with a quote. I will leave it to the reader to reflect upon what effect posting only the latter portion of Jefferson's thought has on one's understanding of the point he intended to make:

If, by religion, we are to understand Sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.' But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism, and deism taught by Jesus of Nazareth in which all agree, then, without it, this would be, as you say, 'Something not fit to be named, even indeed a hell.

Thanks, I think the point is the same, don't you?
He thought the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth were sublime and that he and his fellow men were in agreement on that. See the guy was a bible scholar. He didn't just take someone else's word for it .. .he got down into it, to figure out what it meant, what was right, what was wrong and etc., for himself. He saw Jesus as a philanthropist and a deist, which is his right as a thinking human being to do. On the other hand, he couldn't abide Paul or the Book of Revelation. To each his own, yes? you can't extract from the words of Thomas jefferson's disdain for organized religion, that he was an enemy of Christianity, only that the coin had two faces, one sublime and the other not. But without the coin, this would be hell.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by undo]

If by 'the point' you mean what follows in the rest of your reply, that is for you to answer as it is your interpretation of what Jefferson is writing.

To me, all he is doing in this text is contrasting the two points:

If what we mean by religion is a set of narrow-minded, parochial points of view or tenets put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds, then we could do with out that.

-BUT-

If the rules by which we agree to a common, universal view of right/wrong, which are not taught but are intrinsic to human beings when they live together and interact, and if we all as a group consider and agree with Jesus's body of thought which included a belief in the general welfare of humanity (philanthropism) as well as a belief in a god who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation (deism), then, yes without that sort of social contract, we would be living in a hell.



[edit on 23-3-2008 by wytworm]

reply to post by wytworm


Very well put, as regards the concepts behind deism.
Notice, however, that although he may have disagreed with
organized religion, he and his fellows were essentially men
of like belief, which constitutes an organized belief system.

Let's skip the fineries, shall we? Black is still black. Red is still red.
Green is still green. A group of believers in a particular philosophical
ideal, are still organized "religion." He was a fine gentleman and a scholar
but he was afterall, just as "religious" and "organized" as any other
group of like believers.