Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

Originally posted by wytworm

Glanced at it. Not enough to comment.

You didn't read it or
you don't think I've explained it well enough? It's mostly philosophical analogy but pertains to the idea of how math, philosophy, science, technology and the free will of humanity, relate to the concept of christianity.

reply to post by undo


Heh. Meaning I really only look at responses where I think it was related to some discussion i was involved with. I think that one was parallel to what we had been going back and forth on. Have to put the kids to bed now. Perhaps i will double back later...

Originally posted by AshleyD
All this time I thought Mel was a Welsh college boy living in his mom's basement or something.

Heh, cheers. Nice to know how people imagine me through my internet persona. You were so wide of the mark it's quite stunning. But that's cool.

As someone who follows neither side its interesting to watch both sides though.

While christians may be factually wrong in most of what they say, their view of the world may have a psychological advantage.

Belief in a supreme being, acts of forgiveness and kindness...these things can get you advantages on the "market"

reply to post by melatonin


Ya, I'm pretty craptacular at judging people on here. I never get it right in terms of their looks, age, lifestyle, or gender. I just figured you were really smart for your age and still in college. Also thought you were a female for the longest time. Kudos to you.

Ok. I'll stop derailing the topic. It was Skfloating and BW's fault!

[edit on 3/24/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
When? I have never seen it because their is none.

you've been shown it here on ATS, mainly by mel.
it's quite real, but you seem to be too dogmatic to accept that.

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.

...natural selection tends to take millions of years
artificial selection is a completely different thing, it can go faster
variation can come quickly, but, depending on the lifespan and litter size of the species we're talking about, natural selection might take a lot longer

The bottom line,,

THEY ARE ALL DOGS!

for now

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

says the one who has yet to demonstrate a proper understanding of the theory.

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

...see?
try demonstrating some knowledge

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

well, you shouldn't expect an entirely new species in 10,000 years
...especially when the premise of this artificial selection is that you can breed all of these things together

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...

you gave me something 8 pages long.
8 pages...
i could take the time to dissect it...but how about this, you actually read and dissect something of equal length that i dig up
deal?
i'll do it...it'll take a while and i'll post it in O&C if you accept my terms
otherwise, this is a pointless exercise

..and i read the first few parts, it's not that hard to take on

and the insult was much appreciated.
shows me how desperate you are.

One other thing I am thinking about that I learned. This post wasn't the typical off the cuff OP. I did spend a little time researching and making the connections. I'm kind of stuck at home, so I can't make it to the library right now. But I learned what parts of my argument I need to work on. What I need to change, what I might want to develop more etc etc. As far as testing out ideas and getting criticism.. a forum like this is second to none.

It's a laymans peer review process.

I will flesh it out with what i learned here and make it a better more persuasive argument.

Originally posted by audas


Einstein's entire point was that he DID NOT believe in God, capital G, he

Yes he did.

felt the need to come out and state this implicitly time, and time again as Religious persons were constantly inferring his relating the universe to GOD LIKE required refuting.

Proof he unequivocally absolutley believed their was no grand creator out there?

The basis of his many, many comments on this issue was that he utterly repudiated the existence of God. YOUR GOD WITH A CAPITAL God

We (again) never said "whose" God, we just said "A" God or supreme being creator, another words,, HE DIDN'T BELIEVE the Atheist Religion of evolution Theory of "Cosmic Coincedence" or as we intelligent super Christians call what Atheists believe "MAGIC"

- how moronic can you get.

Einstein Believed in God

further you simply have not even addressed the fundamental issues put forward in response to this ludicrous thesis - communism was a the ideology and driving force behind Marx - a utopian ideal, . To say otherwise is a flagrant lie. Nothing less.
NOT ATHEISM

Gee now ya know how Christians feel whenever we correct those silly contradictions of the Bible or show proof Jesus existed.

I Understand why you would say that Atheism had nothing to do with it even though they were all Atheists I see why you wouldn't want that connected in any way and deny the inherent Atheism that in that society.

I can tell it would be hard to connect the dots to the obvious distinctions of Atheism and one of the biggest reasons Atheism has no credibility with us anymore is they're never ever accountable for anything, they never agree to anyone but their own and the black and white polar issues that they are so involved in. Even when their are many historians, experts etc that will substantiate ipso facto the critical component of an Atheistic worldview.

Even as each one of them who were doing the killing could be asked if they were Atheist with them all saying ,, well yes,, yes I am but I am not doing this in the name of Atheism. No No seems the ONLY thing done in the name of Atheism is deny things in the name of Atheism. Rather then say I am killing you in the name of Atheism, they will use their tricky spin speak saying I am killing you NOT in the name of Atheism. In the meantime, they are not actively not killing in the name of Atheism or actively not believing in God. They are totally immersed in the pre-occupation of the God they are not believing in and the religion they refuse to partake in while they take it apart using lies and dis-information having little to no regard for the truth much less justice, then weasel their way into more and more of our lives encroaching encroaching ever closer to that fine line between changes they want with a Government looking more and more like the one they say Atheism had no bearing on.

While they DEMAND Christians observer the now bastardized version of our U.S Constitution where they grandstand on the virtues of separation of Church and state keeping anyone opposing their Science of Religion's worldview while they advance their Atheism, they want us to ignore Court established laws defining them as a Religion.

It would be interesting if Atheists could finally back up their Bravado against a real choice and see what happens but Atheists don't like fox holes and they don't like competition much less cooperation.

As with REAL intelligent people, they have ability to take that which is complicated and turn it into something more simple, easier to grasp and much more concise. I just got so curious about this writer that I just had to copy paste his work into a style writer using the Science and Journalism add-on so I might confirm what I see so often with Atheist Arguments.

Lo n Behold,, Audus writes at Grade level 26!! Dawkins average paragraph using the same number of words is grade level 21.

. What is peculiar about this paragraph is its deliberate use of Doctorate level vocabulary using a whopping 58 words per sentence and a pathetic readability of merely 9. The 600 meg software program used by more writers then any other from Law papers to papers submitted for peer review, suggests deception using superfluous words which end up saying a lot about very little at all. That in fact this suggests the writers over use of thesaurus to compensate for a lack of a good point.





So for any of you who get the feeling you are being dazzled with fancy verbal gymnastics and obfuscation while not quite knowing why it is completely devoid of any POINT,,

That would be why

Your arguments are simply inline with your level of intellect, non existent - appears to be a common theme amongst religious zealots, total intellectual vacuums.

hehe that's funny..

You have no idea regarding the deeper issues of Marxism, liberal Utopian ideals, Enlightenment, etc.-- just a cherry picked ephemeral, almost cliched, grasp of the bare rudiments of these issues, and yet condescend to those whom it is glaringly obvious are vastly more informed and considered on these issues.

Those insults and big words don't make you more convincing much less even close to being correct.

You quite simply do not know what you are talking about, have a fear of finding out the truth, put your arguments forward not in any manner which is designed to gain knowledge or "truth", but to defend an intellectual position from possible question or critique. It is this which defensive posturing which aims to inhibit any exploration of your own understanding which most illuminates your fundamental ignorance - the grotesque misunderstandings of the profound subjects you raise and attempt to ridicule only serve to accentuate your impoverished intellect, academic vacuum and almost depressing ignorance of life in general.

*yawn*

It is this very situation which makes Religion so perversely dangerous, the untold misery which has been inflicted upon the world through the inhibiting of human discovery, as the very process must, and does, by default completely deny the ridiculous nature of religion, from the withdrawing of human progress into the dark ages of religious intellectual degeneration.

You ever see someone write with such artificially enhanced intelligence while insulting anyone this much? Have YOU EVER seen a mature adult, someone you would expect at least a modicum of civility having an I.Q. apparently 5 grade levels higher then Dawkins, portray himself displaying such a dichotomy in language skills and adult maturity?

I have not but like most of the intelligence, we see from this group of kitchen cosmetology scientists,

everything they do is an act

Everything they say,,,

Amounts to nothing

- Con






[edit on 24-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Con,

Maybe you weren't here when I said it before in this thread, but, any...and I mean ANY sniping or personal attacks will be dealt with immediately.
Attack the theory or post, NOT the writer. PERIOD!
Fun times are over with the personal attacks in the Conspiracies in Religion forum.
Cease and desist, or be an example.

Thank you.
Cuhail

edit ------- forget it

[edit on 3/24/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by audas


Your appellate court means NOTHING to the rest of the world - do you believe that what happens in some rural backwater in some obscure part of the globe makes it so ? Please how utterly ridiculous.

No actually that case was won off of case law already established by the US supreme court. As for other parts of the world?? Who cares what their Atheists do,, as long as they can not, NOT, do it, here.

- Con

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


you've been shown it here on ATS, mainly by mel.
it's quite real, but you seem to be too dogmatic to accept that.

shows me how desperate you are.

Maddness,, honest, I have NO recollection of that what so ever???


I been looking for it in the other thread but,, I don't even know when this was.

- Con

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

i think he's going to lose some of his converts due to the double-edged sword created by his decision to not reveal himself to anyone but abductees. the abductees are then harrassed, prodded, poked, experimented on, tortured and returned to their homes, where no one believes their experience and calls them insane, drug addicts and so on. eventually, people in UFOlogy who have had these bad experiences, are going to get real tired of the way atheism treats everything it can't pick up with its hands and examine. and when they do reach that point, the real tough questions are going to come up. before that happens, however, the great deception has to finish its cycle. and i ain't so sure who is going to be here and who is not, by that point.

In the words of my favorite lyricist, Bob Dylan, "youre gonna have to serve somebody". And you have to make up your mind. Some have, I see. Is it the right choice?

I know this relates pretty far back in the thread, but I'm just now catching up where I left off. So Forgive please.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by melatonin

 

Ya, I'm pretty craptacular at judging people on here. I never get it right in terms of their looks, age, lifestyle, or gender.

I just figured you were really smart for your age and still in college. Also thought you were a female for the longest time. Kudos to you.

Ok. I'll stop derailing the topic. It was Skfloating and BW's fault!

[edit on 3/24/2008 by AshleyD]

I thought it was the flying spaghetti monster, but once again I'm WRONG!

99.995 of Athiests and Christians have both got it wrong: both groups insist that they know the truth, whereas, of course, they don't.

Back on topic, I have noticed a tendency for certain types of christians to look for enemies. The thread title is an example of this. Why does this particular brand of christianity need to see threats everywhere?

Really, I think Athiests want the right to choose their type of society and its mores, their child's system of education, etc. Sadly, certain types of christians do seem intent on thrusting their opinion of the truth down everyone else's throats. I suppose this comes from the idea that their's is the one true way and everyone else's opinion (if it differs from theirs) is an affront and is seen as an attack on christianity.

Originally posted by rizla
99.995 of Athiests and Christians have both got it wrong: both groups insist that they know the truth, whereas, of course, they don't.

Back on topic, I have noticed a tendency for certain types of christians to look for enemies. The thread title is an example of this. Why does this particular brand of christianity need to see threats everywhere?

Really, I think Athiests want the right to choose their type of society and its mores, their child's system of education, etc. Sadly, certain types of christians do seem intent on thrusting their opinion of the truth down everyone else's throats. I suppose this comes from the idea that their's is the one true way and everyone else's opinion (if it differs from theirs) is an affront and is seen as an attack on christianity.

An Atheist civil rights group condemned Friday's passage at the United Nations of a proposal for a global ban on "defaming" religion.

The measure, passed 24 -14 (nine abstentions) by the U.N. Human Rights Council called upon governments to "take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination including through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion..."
www.americanchronicle.com...

Maybe this

- Con

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Why don't you edit out his insults and fine him points?

I find the easiest solution to these dilemmas is to simply make the required modifications (edit myself) and continue on, unabated! It doesn't matter in the larger picture anyway, and if you can't be frazzled, you can think clearer and respond more concisely. I had to drop the topic of women and atheism because I was way too frazzled by it. Emotions get high and suddenly the idea becomes more important than the person it is addressed to, and as a christian, I know that's not the way I want to deal with others. It feels wrong to me. So when the hackles are up and someone reminds me of civility I just figure I had it coming. (not saying you did! just saying, that's how I deal with it, internally).

reply to post by rizla


Rizla,

Well if you attend a public school, I think you'll find there's not any reason for concern that the bible thumpers will be taking over and teaching your kids atheism. The atheists might, though. Wait! No, they already are!

I have no clue why they are worried. It's like the guys on that one blog were saying (sorry forget the name of it), some of the influential atheists want 100% agreement on the subject of atheism. Now, I dunno about you, but I never agree with anyone on anything, 100%. Heck there are times I don't even agree with myself!

reply to post by undo


You're right. In the big scheme of things it matters not at all.
He was particulary amusing in that he sought to rewrite history by claiming Einsteins atheism repeatedly after i posted Einsteins own word to the contrary. Just further evidence of the desire to change history... it supports the thread actually... In that case I am grateful for it now



I just posted a guitar tune Candlelight, you might like it... it's melodic electric guitar with slap bass... I think its pretty strong.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Nice! Sounds like some of Phil Keaggy's stuff!



Hope you are feeling better and better, everyday. chemo sucks!