It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

page: 39
24
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Originally posted by audas

Well you have clearly demonstated an almost total lack of understanding of the issues involved, may go some way in explaining the origins of your position. Darwin, absolutely renounced his religion. END OF STORY, and while we are at it Einstein was a devout atheist.


I don't think you realize how dumb what you just said is. I was trying to argue Darwin renounced his faith that was my purpose. I am glad you agree. You help my case. All the other atheists are trying to argue Darwin believed n God. I quoted Darwin's autobiography, where is your source? Oh it must be you butt. Guess what Einstein doesn't like what you said.



In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)

What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

Einstein



Communism is a form of milenarianism, or utopianism. Got it. NOt a hard one to get. To consider that social engineering in any way is related to a rejection of religion, or a theoretical postulation for the evolution of species is utter clap trap.

I find it more and more bizzare the irrational connections deluded religious sufferers will put forward to justify their mania.


Let's see I quoted Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for my information on communism. What is your source again? Oh yeah your butt, that's right.

Get it? NOt a hard one to get.



Further if you just want to stick to the "isssues" you have raised, then religion has been at the epicentre of war and murder for over 3 thousand years and then some. incas, mayans, ancient greek sacrifices etc are all included - religion - then the numebrs are beyond comprehension.



Spell much?
I can't even read that foamed mouth hate drivel.



Nazism alone (yes this was a religion) should be enough to leave off labouring over such a ridiculous point, one clearly and universally accepted as organised religions darkest corner.

Religion is part of man, atheist man created religion, I am not going to run away from that reality - how about you stop running away from the reality that religion is the epicentre of the darkest hours of human history.


Atheist man created religion?
I think reality left the building for you long ago son.



Deal with it.



I just did.


[edit on 3/23/2008 by Bigwhammy]


How mundane, you start a thread, get torn to shreds, and reply with "laughing" sigs because you have no argument...well done.

Atheist do not contend that Darwin maintained his belief in god, ridiculous comment that you have merely conjured out of well - your favourite sphincter. I certainly didn't. It is widely known and thoroughly accepted
that Darwin, though much pain, could come to no other conclusion other than
to admit God did not exist.

I pointed out that Religious nutters love to present Einstein as a believer as
he regularly commented on God and that there must BE a god, however not any personal God as espoused by religious butters as yourself. Further this is THE MOST misquoted comment of all time as he is referring to RELIGIOUS people quoting HIM as having faith in God. Well done - glad you have used th einternet to perpetuate a myth.




posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Jadette
 


You may be right about recent history... over 10-20 years its naturally going to fluctuate up and down.

I mean more as a trend since say 1950 or so... divorce was less common the further back you go. There had never been a mass school shooting. Now there have been several. When my Dad was in school there were no drugs. Now there are dealers in the hallway. Now schools have metal detectors. Wasn't necessary when I was in school.

It's definitely much much worse.

We going the way of ancient Rome. We are following the same pattern they did. Values decrease the civilization falls.


[edit on 3/23/2008 by Bigwhammy]


But the statistics aren't just in the last 10-20 years. And they aren't going up and down, but, steady.

Now, yes, divorce is higher than say, it was 100 years ago.

1890: 5.87 per 100
1895: 6.51 per 100
1900: 7.86 per 100
1905: 8.07 per 100
1910: 8.76 per 100
1915: 10.35 per 100
1920: 13.38 per 100
1925: 14.76 per 100
1930: 17.39 per 100
1935: 16.43 per 100
1940: 16.54 per 100
1945: 30.07 per 100
1950: 23.10 per 100
1955: 24.62 per 100
1960: 25.80 per 100
1965: 26.61 per 100
1970: 32.80 per 100
1975: 48.13 per 100


While this does show that rates have been rising all along, I think you'd have to argue then, that we abandoned a 'moral' path some time ago, in order to explain the continual rise of rates. The leap in the 1970s is due to the 'no fault' divorce laws being put into place. Before that, both parties had to agree to the divorce.

As for crime:

In 1950 homicide was 4.5%, compared to the 5.5% it is now. So, not much different.

Juvenile crime: in 1957, 55% of all arrests were juveniles. In 1998, that was 33%.

In 1957, 13% of all violent crimes were committed by juveniles. In 1998 it was just 17% down from a high of 23% in 1978.

So not that different either.

What I think we suffer from, is a distortion from the media. Because the facts do not support a more violent, immoral world.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
No he isn't this Bunk pure garbage, it's nothing but speculation to fit the theory. Since their is no observable evidence of macro evolution,



con, you've been shown the observable evidence of macro evolution...yet you continue to say it isn't show.



Climate change is bunk, Now I am starting to figure out why they keep pushing climate change. So it will substantiate more theory.

Which is it, Global warming, or Climate Change?


...climate change isn't bunk. the world went through several ice ages
that was a big ol' climate change
egypt used to be a far more tropical and fertile area, as was the rest of north africa
hell, the deserts in africa are spreading as we speak...
the mediterranean wasn't always as full as it is now...prior to the straits of gibralter opening up it wasn't really a "sea"



Wrong,, that idea shot to hell, here try studying up before you go acting like you know what you are talking about www.pbs.org...


the irony of that statement...
nothing in the pbs documentary you provided contradicted the statements you're addressing.



Ashe would remember when I used this same argument to refute evolution, now that the evolution nitwits believe itmm the say THATS evolution too now LOL what crooks


an ad hom attack is the last resort of the desperate
it IS evidence of evolutionary change
it may not be natural selection, but it is evolutionary change through artificial selection.
within 10,000 years we have made a huge difference in one species, that's evidence of evolution through selective reproduction.



Evolution is the most corrupt scam, the biggest hoax and most bs ever created by an atheist .


he was an agnostic...and he started out as a theist.



It was Bunk in 1857 and it is Bunk now

It will always be bunk


to quote you
"here try studying up before you go acting like you know what you are talking about "
www.pbs.org...

and here are a few more...
en.wikipedia.org...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
nationalacademies.org...
www.newscientist.com...
science.howstuffworks.com...
anthro.palomar.edu...
darwin-online.org.uk...
www.rationalrevolution.net...

[edit on 3/24/08 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Contuning::-

Einstein was quite vociferous in his denial of a personal religious God, so attempting to "misquote" him as not wanting to be quoted is utterly mischievous and deceitful, Religion to a "T".

"The Idea of God is quite alien to me and seems even naive" - Einstein doesn't sound like some one not wanting to discuss the issue...

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but expressed it clearly"- Einstein.

Looks like Einstein was being promoted as a religious person, by religious people, and that he was happy to point out he wasn't and have himself quoted on the issue. Looks like you just got totally PAWNED.


You then point out that you quoted Karl Marx and Engels - well actually they were both FAR more influenced by the program of Eugenics which was being carried out by Christians in America.

Your arguments are so diaphanous and insipid i am barely able to raise a response if it were not for your abhorrent misrepresentation of ideas, profound confusion of history, and devious representation of events.

You are simply unable to get it through your head that no war has ever been waged in the name of atheism - whether or not atheists were involved in war - you are unable to understand the difference - rather unwilling.

Much of history warfare has been aimed at imposing the religious will of one strain over another. Rarely, if never, has a war been waged to spread the belief in atheism. This is simply a fact. There is no denying it beyond ignorance and mischief.

The activity of communism, Nazism, and present day Iraq is to create a better world all of which stems from the Enlightenment and pursuit of utopian
ideals. Even the most perfunctory understanding modern International Relations would enable this most simplistic of norms to be understood.

Simply tying any interest a person has explored to their subsequent conclusions is a profound misrepresentation and utterly devious. At no stage did any of these people claim their main purpose was to rid the world of God - rather they claimed it was to pursue a better means for the distribution of wealth. Quite simply, you know nothing about Marx.

Further you consider that one example of "the great leap forward" and Stalin's atrocities as examples of Atheism is proof that the position of non belief in god is flawed - yet the millions - billions - who have died and been persecuted in the name of religion are some how immune to this same analysis ? Absurd.

To point out how utterly moronic your arguments are, you attempt to show that Stalin and Mao (neither of whom invented communism 'der') were influenced in their Early thinking by Darwinism and yet Darwin, Stalin and even Marx were also, and without doubt more profoundly influenced by the teachings and methods of Christianity. OOPS!

Part of the point you raised in your initial diatribe is that Dawkins points out the extremely disastrous impact that the mental abuse inflicted upon young children has in their latter development......your argument would lead one to believe that the more negative aspects of the consequences of Stalinism were derived from his oppressive religious childhood..... PAWNED AGAIN!!

Not doing to well toady are you. but perhaps you might want to discuss things you actually understand, as cherry picking from highly convoluted subjects such as this are clearly well beyond you.

Oh and just for you




posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by audas


How mundane,


Hey,, it was a rebuttal to your post,, so it isn't like he had a lot to work with. It isn't easy to make anything entertaining or informative in the way of a rebuttal to your post when he really had nothing substantive to go off of.



you start a thread,


Damn,, I wish I was an atheist, so I could just say "No you are wrong"



get torn to shreds,




Yeah but you should see the other guy



and reply with "laughing" sigs





because you have no argument...


At least he hasn't from you so far


Atheist do not contend that Darwin maintained his belief in god, ridiculous comment that you have merely conjured out of well - your favorite sphincter


So you are saying Atheists believe that Darwin didn't maintain his belief in God? (Pssssst,,, C'mere,, Oh umm, how did you know your sphincter was his favorite?)




It is widely known


How wide?



and thoroughly accepted


How thorough and by who?



that Darwin, though much pain,


how much is much?



could come to no other conclusion other than to admit God did not exist.


Wrong, their was another conclusion but he chose the one from his favorite sphincter.



I pointed out that Religious nutters love to present Einstein as a believer as he regularly commented on God and that there must BE a god, however not any personal God as espoused by religious butters as yourself.


Where did you hallucinate this? Please show us where he elaborates into this personal God. I seem to remember him merely saying he acknowledged one. Where does whammy mention a relationship, personal or otherwise, with God. Then,, after that, show us where he speaks of Einstein’s faith. Show us where whammy says Einstein regularly commented on God. He copied his quote verbatim so your argument isn't with whammy, it's with Einstein.



Well done - glad you have used the einternet to perpetuate a myth.


He couldn't have done it,,

without your help.




- Con



[edit on 24-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 



Einstein was quite vociferous in his denial of a personal religious God, so attempting to "misquote" him as not wanting to be quoted is utterly mischievous and deceitful, Religion to a "T".

"The Idea of God is quite alien to me and seems even naive" - Einstein doesn't sound like some one not wanting to discuss the issue...


Apparently not only is it the Christians that like to quote mine.
The full (read NOT creatively EDITED) quote is as follows


"The idea of a personal god is quite alien to me and seems even naive." - Albert Einstein


Einstein said he didn't believe in a PERSONAL god, in otherwords he didn't not believe in a being such as the Abrahamic religions follow. But he has been quoted MULTIPLE TIMES as saying he did believe in a "higher power/prime mover/god" just he did NOT believe in one that payed all that much attention in us as the Christian god is said to.

He classified himself as a agnostic, but he talked like a spiritualist.
He made it quite clear but those that like to edit reality to to suit themselves ignore the statements they don't like, like Religion's of Atheism and Christianity.

It's funny how both sides to play his statements against themselves.

For their own greedy and childish means.
Not that it really matters what he believed.
Some questions you can't rely on others to answer.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well, if the powers that be said it's true, then there must not be any bias, or $$$$$ involved in keeping up the appearance of 'unquestionable' evolution.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by audas
 



Einstein was quite vociferous in his denial of a personal religious God, so attempting to "misquote" him as not wanting to be quoted is utterly mischievous and deceitful, Religion to a "T".

"The Idea of God is quite alien to me and seems even naive" - Einstein doesn't sound like some one not wanting to discuss the issue...


Apparently not only is it the Christians that like to quote mine.
The full (read NOT creatively EDITED) quote is as follows


"The idea of a personal god is quite alien to me and seems even naive." - Albert Einstein


Einstein said he didn't believe in a PERSONAL god, in otherwords he didn't not believe in a being such as the Abrahamic religions follow. But he has been quoted MULTIPLE TIMES as saying he did believe in a "higher power/prime mover/god" just he did NOT believe in one that payed all that much attention in us as the Christian god is said to.

He classified himself as a agnostic, but he talked like a spiritualist.
He made it quite clear but those that like to edit reality to to suit themselves ignore the statements they don't like, like Religion's of Atheism and Christianity.

It's funny how both sides to play his statements against themselves.

For their own greedy and childish means.
Not that it really matters what he believed.
Some questions you can't rely on others to answer.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]


Sorry but he was quite explicit about this - he did not believe in any God, higher being, prime mover or god. Simple. He has gone on record for this specific purpose on numerous occasions. HE even insisted that he should never have used the word God to represent what he saw as a mystical entity (the universe). He went to great lengths to make this clear. Yes he was absolutely against any kind of "personal" god, or any other single being or god like entity which created the universe.

Atheism is NOT a religion. It is without a single god "A" Theism. Atheism is no more a religion that asexual is male or female. Without gender does not mean it is with another gender. Atheism is without god, this does not imply there is any other god.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by audas


How mundane,


Hey,, it was a rebuttal to your post,, so it isn't like he had a lot to work with. It isn't easy to make anything entertaining or informative in the way of a rebuttal to your post when he really had nothing substantive to go off of.



you start a thread,


Damn,, I wish I was an atheist, so I could just say "No you are wrong"



get torn to shreds,




Yeah but you should see the other guy



and reply with "laughing" sigs





because you have no argument...


At least he hasn't from you so far


Atheist do not contend that Darwin maintained his belief in god, ridiculous comment that you have merely conjured out of well - your favorite sphincter


So you are saying Atheists believe that Darwin didn't maintain his belief in God? (Pssssst,,, C'mere,, Oh umm, how did you know your sphincter was his favorite?)




It is widely known


How wide?



and thoroughly accepted


How thorough and by who?



that Darwin, though much pain,


how much is much?



could come to no other conclusion other than to admit God did not exist.


Wrong, their was another conclusion but he chose the one from his favorite sphincter.



I pointed out that Religious nutters love to present Einstein as a believer as he regularly commented on God and that there must BE a god, however not any personal God as espoused by religious butters as yourself.


Where did you hallucinate this? Please show us where he elaborates into this personal God. I seem to remember him merely saying he acknowledged one. Where does whammy mention a relationship, personal or otherwise, with God. Then,, after that, show us where he speaks of Einstein’s faith. Show us where whammy says Einstein regularly commented on God. He copied his quote verbatim so your argument isn't with whammy, it's with Einstein.



Well done - glad you have used the einternet to perpetuate a myth.


He couldn't have done it,,

without your help.




- Con



[edit on 24-3-2008 by Conspiriology]


Drivel - asinine.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Why don´t you ask instead:

Have religions airbrushed history?



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 



He went to great lengths to make this clear. Yes he was absolutely against any kind of "personal" god, or any other single being or god like entity which created the universe.


Yet you fail to come up with ANY unedited quote saying such.

Yes perhaps if you claim it enough times it will become true.


And if you want to dive into that drivel about atheism's religious status go back in the thread I already covered that.

He repeatedly said he didn't believe in a PERSONAL god.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by derfred33
Why don´t you ask instead:

Have religions airbrushed history?



THANK YOU!

It's taken about a ba-zillion posts on this, but you finally put it quite nicely.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by HeadFirstForHalos
 


Every group that is convinced it must spread airbrushes the truth.

You just want to turn it around because it is against your group this thread is aimed.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by audas
Contuning::-


Einstein was quite vociferous in his denial of a personal religious God, so attempting to "misquote" him as not wanting to be quoted is utterly mischievous and deceitful, Religion to a "T".


He didn't misquote him, READ HIS POST! READ THE QUOTE HE POSTED

You misinterpret the quote then superimpose the meaning on him. Why should whammy defend something he never said



"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.and I do not believe in a personal God I have never denied this but expressed it clearly"- Einstein.


Key word,, ready??

I do not believe in a personal God


Personal



Looks like Einstein was being promoted as a religious person, by religious people, and that he was happy to point out he wasn't and have himself quoted on the issue. Looks like you just got totally PAWNED.


HA HA HA you got to take people who tried to pigeon hole him into a religion back then and use what they did to "Pwn" him.




Your arguments are so diaphanous and insipid i am barely able to raise a response if it were not for your abhorrent misrepresentation of ideas, profound confusion of history, and devious representation of events.


Oh C'mon guy drop the thesaurus and quit acting like you got a trailer trash scholarship from the university of monosyllabic diatribe.

jeeez how transparent.



You are simply unable to get it through your head that no war has ever been waged in the name of atheism


No guy,, you can't have it both ways. If you are going to use a common denominator saying LOOK those are all Catholics so that is in the name of religion, one can argue but it wasn't in the name of Catholicism. You insist on it so what must we see as the common distinction of these wars by secular humanist?? Ummm Gee I guess the fact that they were Atheists just whooosh right over your head.



Much of history warfare has been aimed at imposing the religious will of one strain over another. Rarely, if never, has a war been waged to spread the belief in atheism. This is simply a fact. There is no denying it beyond ignorance and mischief.


I guess then the FACT that millions of Christians died or (religious people) at the hands of Atheists (Non Religious people) was just some cosmic coincidence huh??




Further you consider that one example of "the great leap forward" and Stalin's atrocities as examples of Atheism is proof that the position of non belief in god is flawed - yet the millions - billions - who have died and been persecuted in the name of religion are some how immune to this same analysis ? Absurd.


No,, Unlike Atheists who are never wrong never the moron never the one to be concise or succinct never the one to apologize, Christians don't have any argument with the witch trials, the crusades, etc. I mean after all it has been the Atheist agenda for quite some time now to perpetually put Christians on trial for what some did in the past. In spite of your gross exaggeration of the "Billions" we have killed,, that shoe fits snug where it belongs,, The McDonalds of Murders!! ATHEISM! Billions and Billions COLD



PAWNED AGAIN!!


Please dude,, do that in your bathroom or something


cherry picking from highly convoluted subjects such as this are clearly well beyond you.


No,, it isn't beyond him,, it is beneath him but it IS nice to see you are not above it much less beyond doing it.


- Love Con




[edit on 24-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Oh and here is a quote minus the creative editting that states his views.

Einstein also stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth, I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." and "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[54] Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."


[edit on 24-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


con, you've been shown the observable evidence of macro evolution...yet you continue to say it isn't show.


When? I have never seen it because their is none.



...climate change isn't bunk. the world went through several ice agesthat was a big ol' climate change
egypt used to be a far more tropical and fertile area, as was the rest of north africa


That's why I asked, Climate Change or Global warming,, which one is it.


the irony of that statement...
nothing in the pbs documentary you provided contradicted the statements you're addressing.


Yes I used to use that same argument to prove evolution doesn't take millions and millions of years,, NOW That is has been proven that variation doesn't take millions of years,, EVOLUTIONISTS ARE TRYING TO PASS IT OFF TO BACK THEIR THEORY.

The bottom line,,

THEY ARE ALL DOGS!



an ad hom attack is the last resort of the desperate


Call the ad hom patrol then madd,, I see a crook I call it a crook and evolution is so full of scam, hoax, and blind faith it isn't funny

Evolution is a pathetic abuse of junk science passed off as fact and their isn't any.



it IS evidence of evolutionary change
it may not be natural selection, but it is evolutionary change through artificial selection.within 10,000 years we have made a huge difference in one species, that's evidence of evolution through selective reproduction.


It isn't macro evolution and I DON'T SEE ANY NEW SPECIES



Evolution is the most corrupt scam, the biggest hoax and most bs ever created by an atheist .



Here smart guy if you can refute this and I do mean ALL of it. Then you might be able to sound as smart as you think you are

www.newgeology.us...


- Con

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


I have seen the original documents and they be hard to read but their is no doubt Thomas Jefferson was a Christian and says so.

Hardly your kind of Christian. He didn't believe Jesus was anything more than a man and regarded much of the New Testament, in particular the Pauline books and the Revelation, as a pack of lies.


I agree Astyanax. In my opinion, the deists can have Jefferson.
He was a slave owner and a hypocrite. Kept talking about how slavery was wrong and that they needed to abolish slavery but wanted to keep his slaves until he was out of debt... which never happened.

It reminds me of the 'racial draft' from the Dave Chapelle show. 'Ok. You can have Condy Rice but you have to take O.J. too!' 'Now wait a cotton pickin' minute! That wasn't part of the deal!'

We'll have to start a 'founding fathers religion draft' here pretty soon. I call dibs on Washington. The deists can have Jefferson. We'll have to arm wrestle over Franklin, etc.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by audas



How mundane,


Hey,, it was a rebuttal to your post,, so it isn't like he had a lot to work with. It isn't easy to make anything entertaining or informative in the way of a rebuttal to your post when he really had nothing substantive to go off of.



you start a thread,


Damn,, I wish I was an atheist, so I could just say "No you are wrong"



get torn to shreds,




Yeah but you should see the other guy



and reply with "laughing" sigs





because you have no argument...


At least he hasn't from you so far


Atheist do not contend that Darwin maintained his belief in god, ridiculous comment that you have merely conjured out of well - your favorite sphincter


So you are saying Atheists believe that Darwin didn't maintain his belief in God? (Pssssst,,, C'mere,, Oh umm, how did you know your sphincter was his favorite?)




It is widely known


How wide?



and thoroughly accepted


How thorough and by who?



that Darwin, though much pain,


how much is much?



could come to no other conclusion other than to admit God did not exist.


Wrong, their was another conclusion but he chose the one from his favorite sphincter.



I pointed out that Religious nutters love to present Einstein as a believer as he regularly commented on God and that there must BE a god, however not any personal God as espoused by religious butters as yourself.


Where did you hallucinate this? Please show us where he elaborates into this personal God. I seem to remember him merely saying he acknowledged one. Where does whammy mention a relationship, personal or otherwise, with God. Then,, after that, show us where he speaks of Einstein’s faith. Show us where whammy says Einstein regularly commented on God. He copied his quote verbatim so your argument isn't with whammy, it's with Einstein.



Well done - glad you have used the einternet to perpetuate a myth.


He couldn't have done it,,

without your help.




- Con



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


hEh.....
Funny that comment about using Einstein to perpetuate a myth is from someone who uses Einstein to perpetuate his own myths.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by audas


Sorry but he was quite explicit about this - he did not believe in any God, higher being, prime mover or god. Simple. He has gone on record for this specific purpose on numerous occasions. HE even insisted that he should never have used the word God to represent what he saw as a mystical entity (the universe). He went to great lengths to make this clear. Yes he was absolutely against any kind of "personal" god, or any other single being or god like entity which created the universe.


Are you OK?? did you fall on your head??

Read the quote whammy posted then tell me where he DOESN'T say that.




Atheism is NOT a religion. It is without a single god "A" Theism. Atheism is no more a religion that asexual is male or female. Without gender does not mean it is with another gender. Atheism is without god, this does not imply there is any other god.


Atheism is too a religion Atheists fought to have it a religion in Court and won.



- Con







[edit on 24-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join