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: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Howie47
Be sure and see; "Expelled". Being released April 15.
It's so important. Dawkins himself, gate-crashed a screening, recently.
Story here. www.evolutionnews.org...


Yes, well done Howie. I'm sure the creationista overlords will appreciate you transmitting their lies.

PZ Myers signed up online. No tickets required. He, and everyone else, was allowed to take guests. He took Dawkins, his trophy wife, daughter, her boyfriend.

PZ Myers and Dawkins were both lied to to get interviews. But when PZ appeared to watch the film he contributed to, and was thanked for in credits, they 'expelled' him from the queue. Ironic, no?. Dawkins wasn't asked to leave. He watched the film with the rest of PZ's family.

No gatecrashing required. He was entitled to watch the film, signed the forms required etc. And wasn't asked to leave.

ABE: oh, and the film is crap. A boring rant against evilution by a group of creationists, moaning about how science keeps religious ideology out of science, whilst mixed with pictures of nazis and stuff. And intellectually vacuous argument.

You'll probably love it.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by melatonin]


Ha ha ha, this is really a joke. "PZ Myers and Dawkins were both lied to to get interviews." The mainstream media lies continuously to their interviewees. Then edit the questions and answers to serve the medias
view point.
Only in this case you can see Myers and Dawkins themselves, with their own words answering fair questions.
But your right about one thing. If you don't want your faith in the atheistic mainstream system, shaken. Then don't see this movie. You'll be undone for sure.
Since you are giving a review of the movie. Does that mean you saw it? Or are you just parroting your atheist, guru masters?




posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I personally don't think Atheists are air-brushing history.

They TOO want to know the truth...Don't they?

Why would Atheists go through the hassles of deleting or smudging out possible historical significances, that would just as likely add credence to their stance?

It is my personal opinion, that Atheists are looking for the truth, just as much as anyone else.

To claim that it is 'souly atheists', guising as 'whatever', and stipulate that these people are exacting some kind of conspiracy towards others in this matter is bogus.

We need infallible proof people.

"One or two people, that do not act in accordance with the general mainstream or within a 'secret society' does not construe proof as a whole."

We need to, not only fixate our overall visions on the here and now, and what 'might be', but come back to earth folks.

Believe you me, I want to know the truth, as with anyone else.

Let's suppose these general scenerios:

1. Parts of the bible have been omitted. Nag hammadis - Are we talking about an underground organization within the Vatican, to 'supress the truth'? Deleting (possible?) scriptures that might pertain to the general 'of the bible?

2. Supossed 'air-brushed' pics - that would possibly lead credance to 'other civilizations' that are not of this world.

Help me with this one folks.

Why would Atheists truthfully debunk 'certain things' within the public's eyes, then turn around and withhold info, in the same light, to have a 'one up' on the public?

It doesn't make sense.

The only way that I can think that this holds water, is if there are so called 'rogue atheists', undermining EVERYONE.

At this point, I would be so bold to say, that these people couldn't be construed as 'Atheists', but mere rogues for what they are. "Adding to the misinformation already present', and purpertrating themselves to be 'top dogs' of nothing.

This isn't helping the situation, as we are all aware of.

If this is the case, then we must all band together to 'not only find a commonality' with these miscreants, but band together - Spiritual and Atheists alike, to turn the tables on those who seek to undermine the over-all truths that have separated our communities to no end.

~Ducky~



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 




Nope, it's a quote-mine of a defintion of one form of atheism. The 'weak' form of atheism makes no claims or denial of the existence of god. It is just the non-belief.

You used this out of context to suggest this means someone like Dawkins is radical for making claims like telling kiddies about how people burn in hell is a form of mental abuse. Totally out of context.


Sorry you’re wrong about my motive and technique. Here is the entire definition:



The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called “weak” or “implicit” atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called “strong” or “explicit” atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point
atheism.about.com...

I admit I left out the strong definition. I was actually trying to be generous. It doesn’t change anything. Dawkins goes way further than strong Atheism, he doesn’t just “explicitly deny the existence of any gods”. That surprises me not. The reason I am calling him a Radical Atheist is he calls for the abolition of faith. That’s radical and that’s extreme.



Because he might care about the mental abuse of children.

Whammy, with all due respect, stick your fearmongering where the sun don't shine.


Oh I see I must have misunderstood! The God Delusion is a children’s book, make more sense now. So “The Root of All Evil” is more akin to “Horton Hears A Hoo”. While you have me inserting things in my bodily orifices, why not corral and shoot to kill those fear mongering missionaries who are feeding AIDS babies in Africa. After all, they are child abusers too, right?



With 70% of HIV/AIDS deaths worldwide taking place in sub-Saharan Africa, AIDS remains a pandemic for countries like Kenya. Three children die every five minutes in Kenya; hundreds orphaned every day. Through the CLEAR program, CMA is able to provide education, counseling and home based care in Nyanza, the Kenyan province hardest hit by HIV/AIDS.
www.cmaid.org...




Uhm, all atheists have beliefs on top of those pertaining to atheism. Some are even communists - gasp! Some are even humanists - gasp!
Religion doesn't form the 'entire moral framework' of society. You just like to think it does.


Some are even creationists-gasp! Oh that’s impossible… arg. Maybe it doesn’t but it is the dominant influence on world morality. Say Dawkins get his way, what will be the replacement source of morality?



So the claim was wrong then. He didn't name it. OK, he blames 9-11 on faith. Cool, as they flew into the building I have good reason to visualise them screaming 'god is great'.


Dawkins (from his movie) “There are would be murderers all around the world, who want to kill you and me and themselves because they’re motivated by what they think is the highest ideal … don’t let us forget the elephant in the room the elephant called religion."

He blames faith for terrorism. He says faith is a delusion. He says all faith is blind faith. Is all faith blind? You’re a science guy, so tell when John Dalton came to the conclusion that matter had to have a fundamental particle. He was postulating the atom, but he couldn’t see it or measure it. Then Thompson and other scientists spent a lot of time trying to prove it. Weren’t they employing faith?



You can blame atheism for Stalin and Mao all you like.
But it doesn't make the claim sustainable, any more than me blaming christianity for thousands of deaths in Iraq, or the deaths of those in Hiroshima. Sometimes they do it in the name of theism, sometimes they do it in the name of communism and state, sometimes they do it in the name of democracy. Stalin thought the people he was causing the deaths of was justifiable, and Bush thought the people he was leading to non-existence was justifiable.


I do hold atheism accountable for Stalin and Mao. Apples and Oranges… Stalin and Mao were not really at war. They were “naturally selecting” to engineer a society.



More than questionable. His own words show you are wrong. I can try to get the articles tomorrow. Probably a bit old for online access though.


I stated Darwin is known as a theist. I am suggesting he had social reasons to put up a front. It doesn’t hurt my argument a bit it he was an agnostic or a weak theist. I then provided this quote from Darwin’s autobiography,” This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.” Which demonstrates his belief in an intelligent first cause was in question. He had serious doubts. And his theory has undeniably fueled Atheism and Marxism.



I know of at least one atheist who doesn't accept evolutionary theory, he stated so earlier in this thread. I'm sure he's not the only one. Evolution is a scientific theory. That would be like taking on atomic theory as a worldview. A silly comment. Communism is nothing like what a social form of evolutionary theory would be anyway.


Well Karl Marx would beg to differ with you.

"It is commonplace that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin's. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Barzum). Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous book to Darwin but "Darwin 'declined the honor' because, he wrote to Marx, he did not know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of free thought, and finally because he did not want to upset 'some members of my family'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Jorafsky).

emporium.turnpike.net...

See the part about “not want to upset 'some members of my family” is in favor of my view on Darwin’s supposed theism. He didn’t want to sleep on the couch.




It does affect the connection. It shows he never held to 'Darwinian' evolution. Which was your original claim. You might as well blame gravity for the deaths his actions caused.


You’re airbrushing! Marx loved Darwinian evolution. Darwin to Marx. Marx to Stalin and Mao. The connection is Marx. The similarity between dialectical conflict and natural selection is not an accident.



And there is a basis for morals apart from religion. Don't be silly. We form them by social agreement, they are part of the social milieu. And underneath that, we have the capacity to act with empathy an sympathy - that's where evolution played a part.


Please look back at this post www.abovetopsecret.com... and tell me, what is your reason for not killing the fellow?



Yes, the same quote is used over and over, all probably from the same source - Harun. Creationistas are not known for their honesty, so excuse me if I don't take it as reliable, especially when sourced from some obscure german book. Numerous quotes have been found to be completely false from these type of people.


What type of people? The site Evolution Quotes seems kind of generic to me. (bevets.com...)



Of course you think you did. Most secular communists were atheists. But not at all atheists are communists (indeed, very few are). Moreover, if you read the 'christian communist' wiki, you'll see that not all communists were actually atheists. Some based it on the bible.

Therefore atheism =/= communism.


See this is the sort of side stepping I am talking about. Of course Atheism doesn’t equal communism. However they are forever linked in that Karl Marx was a Darwinian Atheist who used those beliefs to create the idea for communism. They’re like a big happy inbred family. (banjo music drifts through the mountain air) Squeal like a pig!




And people who have killed numerous people did. It makes no difference, evil people do evil things.


Ok you’re an Atheist right? There’s no Atheist ten commandments are there? Is there an Atheist Bible? The inspired word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, perhaps?
So what is evil? Who sets the standard for what is evil?


Have you ever seen his discussion with Bishop (ex now) Harries?


No but I have his debate with Dr John Lennox on order.


(on Faith)
Condemn is a strong word. He just thinks it's BS. That's his perogative. So do I.


If faith is BS and Faith is blind, then why does a man trust his wife? Isn’t that a form of faith based on evidence of faithfulness? Of course it is. Faith is not BS and it is not blind.



Yeah, the commies are coming!!!
Religion can make any old poop up. Of course it can pretend to explain it. Before the fall all the animals lived in some fairy-land eating manna from heaven. Dino's were used for donkey rides and snakes talked etc etc


It does explain it. Your heart is hard; so you cannot comprehend it.

See Mel, " God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; " (1 corin 1:27)


Quite frankly, since I am debating you all you scientist intellectuals, I am glad that's true...



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


melatonion (on science)
And it doesn't pretend to. It can answer some though - 'why am I here?' Because mammy and daddy did it like they do on the discovery channel


So that’s what you would tell a child? Wow, I am almost speechless. Let the church lady scream “Isn’t that freakin’ special”?
You just demonstrated a text book example of a Darwinian world view. That song “Ain’t Nothing But Mammals” is the result of your beloved “science” on society. (I will spare the reader the highly offensive verses; use the link if you want to see them)



(Chorus)
Do it now
You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the discovery channel
Do it again now
You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the discovery channel
Getting horny now
www.lyricsdownload.com...

This is the morality of the Darwinist world view on full display. Mel you could not have done any better. Thank you from the bottom of my intolerant little heart. This is a prime example of why we have new terms for parents like “my Baby’s Daddy”. This is why kids grow up in broken homes and become disenchanted. This why they shoot up their high schools. After all...

What the Hell? We’re just mammals!





And you are no more moral than the other advanced western societies. In fact, you a quite high on the league for capital punishment. Only a few years back when the vulnerable were protecting from these actions, and only a few dozen since blacks could ride on buses with whites.


You are wrong. I am openly critical of my country at times. If I was in China. I’d be in prison for it. We’re struggling as a nation but there’s still a HUGE difference. Keep in mind that “Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.”
Let’s take a look…



China Arrests Dozens Of Christians, Including Children
By BosNewsLife Asia Service

BEIJING, CHINA (BosNewsLife) -- A group of 70 Christians remained detained Tuesday, March 4 2008, in China’s Henan Province, some two weeks after security forces raided a Bible training meeting, while some three children in Xinjiang Province were also arrested for their involvement in Christian activities, fellow believers said.

Hundreds of believers attended the gathering in Henan’s Shangqiu City on February 12, when over 20 policemen attacked the meeting, said US-based advocacy group China Aid Association (CAA).

The group added that some 80 believers were taken away in over 10 police cars. While 10 Christians were later released, the others remain behind bars on charges of "using a cult to violate law enforcement," the group explained. There was no immediate comment from Chinese officials.

"Twenty of them are detained in a detention center, while 50 are held in prison," including 39 women, and 11 men, the group said. CAA claimed that police also confiscated blankets, food, air conditioners and furniture from the home of Xue Weimin, where the Bible meeting took place.

CHILDREN DETAINED

Elsewhere in China, police in Huocheng County of Xinjiang Province re-arrested three minors, just days after detaining them for their involvement in Christian activities. They will serve 15 days in a Xinyuan detention center, CAA said.

There names were not immediately released.

The latest incidents have been linked by rights groups to a wider crackdown on especially evangelical Christians and house churches ahead of the Beijing Olympic Games later this year. Chinese officials have reportedly expressed concerns that Christians will use the event to spread Christianity or to world attention for religious rights issues.

www.christianpersecution.info...



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I really hate it, when people start all this word redefining, to try and
justify their point of view.


An atheist is a person the denies the existence of God. The Creator of all things. Although an atheist, might well recognize a physical
object, or another person as a "god".
An agnostic, is the person who is not sure, if there is a God. Or
what His Character might be like.

And in case you think I'm redefinning God.

"God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot. "



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sizzle
 


In every Christian/Atheism thread, the accusation of, Murdering Christian comes up. Never mind that the wars they speak of happened hundreds of years ago. They want us to wear the guilt of them like an albatross, by association.

I'm sorry if people have been holding you to blame for things your forbears did, ma'am, purely because you are of the same religion. I think we can all agree that individuals should be held responsible for their actions. You neither participated in nor abetted any of the atrocities perpetrated by your co-religionists of former times. I do not hold you responsible for them; I do not hold any Christian alive today responsible for massacres committed centuries ago.

Your religion, though, is a different matter.

I am convinced that religious faith, in both doctrine and practice, predisposes us to make evil judgements; also that it provides people with the excuse to give way to atavistic feelings of hatred and to acts of oppression and violence within an 'approved' context; I have many other objections to it, but these are the two presently relevant.

In the Spanish Inquisition, the conquests of the Americas, the East Indies and Africa, the schisms of the Catholic church and the religious wars of the Reformation, the dark side of faith was strongly manifested. Christianity offered the people who were responsible for such atrocities the incentive and excuse to commit them -- and afterwards, exoneration and even reward for doing so. So these episodes offer a good example of why some atheists (and I am one of them, though many on this thread are not) feel religion must go. It won't stop people robbing, raping, torturing and killing each other, but it will at least take away one of their favourite excuses for doing such things.

You see, it's true. It's not religious people I'm against. It's religion. Like a good Christian, I hate the sin, but try to love the sinner.

Though, also like a good Christian, I sometimes fail.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

I think you may have misunderstood me. Please read my post again carefully. If you still have trouble with it, let me know, and I will try to set things straight.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47
Really? Then where do you think everything came from? It was either
created by a creator. Or zip, boom bang, suddenly appeared out of nothing,
by it self. Please suggest an alternative!


Wow, only two options to choose from? A very narrow way to look at life. Just because they're the two most advertised doesn't mean they're the only two.

I have no desire to give you my own theory; based on your obvious one track mind I'd prefer to just keep it to myself for now. I'd like to give you a third option, though, since you asked:

We just don't know!

I would take this option over the other two that you say are the ONLY two. I'm comfortable with being a person who doesn't have all the answers. I'm secure enough in my beliefs and my life to admit when I just don't know something. I don't need to subscribe to any theory which has no evidence, (Intelligent Design), or any theory that has no proof, (such as Darwinism). If either came out with verifiable proof I would say they had something, but until they do, why can't we all just admit that nobody knows for sure? And that saying there is no other option is stupid, yes stupid.


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Say Dawkins get his way, what will be the replacement source of morality?


Would you mind responding to my ever-constant plea to stop assuming that morals come only from God? If you have any basis whatsoever for this ridiculous claim, please share it with me. Theists do not have jurisdiction over morals, theists do not own them. Atheists can have morals, too. Unless you can prove me wrong. You seem to have ignored every single time I've said this, and I've said it numerous times in this thread alone.


I do hold atheism accountable for Stalin and Mao. Apples and Oranges… Stalin and Mao were not really at war. They were “naturally selecting” to engineer a society.


Herein lies your problem: you're holding Atheism responsible when there is absolutely no basis for this. Just because they were "naturally selecting" does not mean that they were doing this in the name of Atheism. You're connecting dots that just don't connect...


Please look back at this post www.abovetopsecret.com... and tell me, what is your reason for not killing the fellow?


You need a reason not kill to somebody? I don't need God to tell me not to kill him, it's common sense. You have yet to respond to my reply to that post, and I'm still very disappointed.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
This is the morality of the Darwinist world view on full display. Mel you could not have done any better. Thank you from the bottom of my intolerant little heart. This is a prime example of why we have new terms for parents like “my Baby’s Daddy”. This is why kids grow up in broken homes and become disenchanted. This why they shoot up their high schools. After all...

What the Hell? We’re just mammals!




Are you seriously blaming all atrocities such as school shootings and broken families on Darwinism? Holy crap, now I see what the real point in this thread was...



[edit on 22/3/08 by an3rkist]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheDuckster
 


I DO so hate it when there are petty disputes amongst the individuals; they fail to realize 'other posts', and the fact that these other posts have relevence to the topic in discussion.

~Ducky~



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TheDuckster
 

Point taken. I just went back and read your earlier post. What can I say? It's just what I've been asking all along -- where's the evidence of conspiracy?

'We need proof, people!' Right on.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47
Ha ha ha, this is really a joke. "PZ Myers and Dawkins were both lied to to get interviews." The mainstream media lies continuously to their interviewees. Then edit the questions and answers to serve the medias
view point.
Only in this case you can see Myers and Dawkins themselves, with their own words answering fair questions.


No, they lied about the film to Dawkins et al. Gave a dud name, whilst knowing exactly what the premise of the film was. Evil darwinistic conspiracy keeps religion out of science, and leads to nazis don't ya know.


But your right about one thing. If you don't want your faith in the atheistic mainstream system, shaken. Then don't see this movie. You'll be undone for sure.


Atheist mainstream? What planet are you on?

Many of us will watch it, I know I like a good laugh. They might need to sort out the copyright issues they're going to have with one of the clips they use. Dembski already knows how naughty it is to use those Harvard mol biol clips like they have been.


Since you are giving a review of the movie. Does that mean you saw it? Or are you just parroting your atheist, guru masters?


Not a review, a general impression thus far.

I've seen clips, read reviews, read Ben Stein drones, and others involved talking about the film. I'll be waiting for a torrent download. I like mockumentaries, but I won't fill their pockets, no sir!

The premise is darwin -> nazis. Nazis expel ID scientists, and constrain open discussion. Although they have not a single case of someone being truly expelled. We have though, PZ was expelled.

They are a paranoid controlling group, for people who want free open academic discussion, rofl. They invited this dude, then disinvited him at the last minute. He went anyway, then they accused him of causing a 'security breach' (rofl), and presenting himself as a minister. OMFSM, he gave a negative review. Evil darwinists!


And re-cast this argument about what people chose to believe vs. what others can prove as fact as a fight for "Freedom."

That's the mnemonic device Stein came back to, time and again, last night in an Orlando screening of his new documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It's a rabble-rouser of a doc that uses all manner of loaded images, loaded rhetoric, few if any facts and mockery of hand-picked "weirdo" scientists to attack those who, Stein claims, are stifling the Religious Right's efforts to inject intelligent design into science courses, science curricula and the national debate.

linky

As I said, I'm sure you'll love it. The PR on this is already backfiring on creationistas. I really do want to see it. It'll be like watching some kooky B-movie - attack of the killer bananas, or something.

And we'll all laugh heartily. We are already.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
A common Atheist device when debating Christians is to bring up the inquisition. You can blame Christianity for that.


And they do
alot.

Gets kind of old doesn't it?


Yes, Absolutely.. they do it so much it inspired me to write about it. That and I went to hear Dr John Lennoxa Christian colleague of Dr Dawkins at Oxford. He spoke about the "new atheism" at my church. Having already seen Riche's hate flick "The Root of All Evil" and the tactics employed by non believers on this board, what he said did not surprise me. He brought up this attempt to sweep history under the rug in his speech. He charged,"We must not let them get away with it." Well this thread is my small attempt to make a difference.



Here Rome comes along, murders Jesus, murders his followers, and then decides to highjack Christianity and turn it into Catholicism. Then we have the Vatican going out murdering people 'in the name of Christ' - a complete and utter blasphemy - well: they succeeded. To this day people are blaming Christians for the action of the Roman satanist empire. Isn't it brilliant?


Well we struggle against powers and principalities, wickedness in high places. It's funny how automatically those killing are "in the name of" religion. But no nobody has ever been killed "in the name of" Atheism. It's pure BS. A world view that view humans as just another animal makes mass murder palatable as social engineeering.



If you ask me, it's not that atheists re-write history, it's that they subscribe to a BS version of history.


They're in denial of their complete lack of a logical foundation for values. History has demonstrated what happens when Atheists are in charge, 120 million dead bodies naturally selected, they don't wan to face it is all.



P.S. That Dawkins documentary is disgusting. Fearmongering anti-Islamic garbage... I fail to see how people consider Dawkins a leader.


I know he's a rabid foam mouthed mad man. Well in the most demure uber-transexual smug kind of way.


Dawkins with his transsexual lover on South Park.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Talk with me my friend.

Listen to the words you have said from your lips.

Talk With me....not 'AT' me.

~Ducky~



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist

Originally posted by Howie47
Really? Then where do you think everything came from? It was either
created by a creator. Or zip, boom bang, suddenly appeared out of nothing,
by it self. Please suggest an alternative!


Wow, only two options to choose from? A very narrow way to look at life. Just because they're the two most advertised doesn't mean they're the only two.

I have no desire to give you my own theory; based on your obvious one track mind I'd prefer to just keep it to myself for now. I'd like to give you a third option, though, since you asked:

We just don't know!

I would take this option over the other two that you say are the ONLY two. I'm comfortable with being a person who doesn't have all the answers. I'm secure enough in my beliefs and my life to admit when I just don't know something. I don't need to subscribe to any theory which has no evidence, (Intelligent Design), or any theory that has no proof, (such as Darwinism). If either came out with verifiable proof I would say they had something, but until they do, why can't we all just admit that nobody knows for sure? And that saying there is no other option is stupid, yes stupid.


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Say Dawkins get his way, what will be the replacement source of morality?


Would you mind responding to my ever-constant plea to stop assuming that morals come only from God? If you have any basis whatsoever for this ridiculous claim, please share it with me. Theists do not have jurisdiction over morals, theists do not own them. Atheists can have morals, too. Unless you can prove me wrong. You seem to have ignored every single time I've said this, and I've said it numerous times in this thread alone.


I do hold atheism accountable for Stalin and Mao. Apples and Oranges… Stalin and Mao were not really at war. They were “naturally selecting” to engineer a society.


Herein lies your problem: you're holding Atheism responsible when there is absolutely no basis for this. Just because they were "naturally selecting" does not mean that they were doing this in the name of Atheism. You're connecting dots that just don't connect...


Please look back at this post www.abovetopsecret.com... and tell me, what is your reason for not killing the fellow?


You need a reason not kill somebody? I don't need God to tell me not to kill him, it's common sense. You have yet to respond to my reply to that post, and I'm still very disappointed.


[edit on 22/3/08 by an3rkist]

If what you are saying is true. Then you arn't an atheist. You are a agnostic.
My earlier post; "I really hate it, when people start all this word redefining, to try and
justify their point of view.


An atheist is a person the denies the existence of God. The Creator of all things. Although an atheist, might well recognize a physical
object, or another person as a "god".
An agnostic, is the person who is not sure, if there is a God. Or
what His Character might be like.

And in case you think I'm redefinning God.

"God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot. "



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


You would have to redefine the word "God" (and I know you hate that), if you want to call me an agnostic. I'm actually a pantheist, but only if you redefine "God" first. I'm an atheist by your definition, believe me.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



""""And re-cast this argument about what people chose to believe vs. what others can prove as fact as a fight for "Freedom."

That's the mnemonic device Stein came back to, time and again, last night in an Orlando screening of his new documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It's a rabble-rouser of a doc that uses all manner of loaded images, loaded rhetoric, few if any facts and mockery of hand-picked "weirdo" scientists to attack those who, Stein claims, are stifling the Religious Right's efforts to inject intelligent design into science courses, science curricula and the national debate.""""""

This is from the atheistic mainstream media, I was talking about. Guess you have a blind spot? What planet are you from? Planet of denial?

"Evil darwinistic conspiracy keeps religion out of science, and leads to nazis don't ya know. "
This common, false attitude, is why the gave a different title. So the
Darwinist conspirators, would drop their guard; and be honest for once!
By the way, it is not about keeping religion out of schools or science.
It is about keeping truth and competing Ideas in science. No religious ideology needs be taught; when implying things where intelligently created. Yet Darwinist want evolution to be taught as a religious dogma; that NO one can challenge. That dear friend; is what this movie is all about. Now run and hide. If you must.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist
reply to post by Howie47
 


You would have to redefine the word "God" (and I know you hate that), if you want to call me an agnostic. I'm actually a pantheist, but only if you redefine "God" first. I'm an atheist by your definition, believe me.



If you say, as you have, you are not sure there is a god. That makes you, agnostic. Not atheistic.

atheist: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

So your argueing with the dictionary. Not me.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I'm an Athiest and believe in Gods only insomuch as to know that I don't.

History is irrelevent. Forget about it and focus on the future. Every moment we spend in the past arguing about what it was is just that same idiocy that created it stealing the precious moments of the future from us again.

Who cares? But I garuntee that I could prove to any and every religion that not only does their idea of God not exist in a context of universal truth and that it is flawed and intolerant, but that in realizing that this is true, if they first had the patience to sit down and open up ears and minds, that their lives would change ten fold and they might find themselves spending their time in life more efficiently and looking at things completely differently instead of defending an institution and ultimately a self that has only paved a lead of destruction and deception.

Don't you ever sit back and ironically say "My God, what are we doing and what have we done?". Do you think those words come out by chance? Do you thoughtlessly blurt them? Do you think about saying them? If not do you think about what it might mean afterward? And why you didn't think about what you say/said? There's so much work to be done...



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by an3rkist
 


"I'm actually a pantheist". so in your first post. You made a mistake,
When you identified yourself as an atheist, that didn't believe in Darwinism?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


So I guess you agree, " the only thing we learn from history, is that
we never learn from history". Of course the author of that quote, meant it in a demeaning way. Not as something we should see as a virtue.
With your kind of thinking, which I'm sure is common. It is evident why
"history is doomed to repeat itself"!

[edit on 22-3-2008 by Howie47]



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join