London's buses go to hell

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin



We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Richard Lewinton,Harvard

also
We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.
Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.

reply to post by LoneWeasel


A passionate atheist believes that religion is the enemy of humanity. The passionate atheist believes that the invention of Gods and Devils to explain human response to human scenarios prevents humankind from exploring, accepting and developing its own reality. The passionate atheist believes that religious belief enables injustice. We, all of us, are responsible for the suffering in this world. We, alone, can remove it. Not for the glory of god but for the glory of humanity. Christians believe that their babies are born corrupted by the actions of a woman responding to the temptations of a talking snake thousands of years in the past. The passionate atheist believes that their baby is born as a glorious glittering diamond showering warmth and joy and love upon this beautiful earth.
Hey, Theist! Are you telling me there is something wrong with my baby? Why are you trying to explain away the problems of the world by defiling my baby?
Passionate? Bloody right!

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin



The Amalekites attacked the Israelites without apparent provocation as they were travelling during the Exodus (Exodus 17:8). \"Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.\" (Deuteronomy 25:17-18). They later attacked Israel during the time of the Judges (Judges 3:13) and often raided the Israelites\' land after they had planted crops, leaving them with nothing (Judges 6:2-5). God punished the Amalekites by ordering Saul to destroy them (1 Sam 15:2-3) - over 300 years after they had first attacked Israel. During that time, the Amalekites had contact with the Israelites and would have heard about God. They could have repented and changed their ways, but they continued to raid and plunder other cities up to the time of Saul and David (1 Sam 30:1-3). The Amalekites that Saul and David warred against were clearly no better than their ancestors who had first lain in wait, to attack and ambush Israel.


who were the Amalekites?They were the descendants of Esau,the bother of Jacob.....cousins of the Israelites in other words

beginning with the period of the judges, Amalek continues the behaviour of their forefathers--oppressing and attacking Israel for between 200 and 400 years (Judges 3,6,7, 10) and actually even AFTER the \'annihilation\' of the main group of Amalekites (1 Sam 30).

But--during these same 200-400 years--Amalekites were welcomed into Israel as immigrants. . There was a period of \'amnesty\' and \'clemency\' unparalleled in ancient history up to this time. God gave the individuals within the nation centuries to \'get out\' \"At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. \") As with the vast majority of the Canaanite population, the sensible Amalekites would have migrated somewhere else. All that would have been left at the time of Saul would have been a leadership raised and steeped in anti-Israel violence and hatred. This is NOT some innocent nation, protecting its homeland from an invading and greedy people. This is the sins of the fathers being continued by their children.

The Amalekites worshipped Moloch-the first baby in a marriage was killed and buried in the foundation of the first home after being boiled in oil ALIVE as an offering to Moloch....this practice had been spread to some of the Israelites as well,who incidentally were under the same punishment as the Amalekites

Originally posted by noobfun
clearskies it still makes me laugh when you tried t prove darwin an evil racist by using a book some racist guy wrote in the 90's and tried to claim his words were Darwins
[edit on 27/10/08 by noobfun]

I will type this SLOWLY, so you understand........
This IS FROM DARWIN'S pamphlet;
Descent of Man, chapter 5
THESE are ACTUAL quotes from his booklet!
Most of what happened in that thread you refer to, was, "so what if he was racist? Everybody was." and "He didn't say that"
and saying I was 'deflecting'. So, I don't think you can say YOU or anyone else can claim victory!
Look it up for yourself. What do these WORD'S MEAN? Was Darwin racist?
(maybe he mellowed, later and became less racist and EVEN tried to help the lesser races.)

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are borne by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him.

At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout
the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it
will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Can you say RACISM?

reply to post by Clearskies



Sorry to butt in on the argument you two are enjoying - but what is the point here? That Darwin was racist and therefore is science is wrong? Forgive me, but my analysis would be that Darwin doesn't say anything that wasn't accepted sentiment among white middle class people of his era. He's talking about the survival of the fittest, about more powerful civilisations eventually wiping out not so powerful civilisations. He probably did view this as a case of the British empire eventually surviving where the African civilisations didn't. His words may or may not be racist, but I don't see how it effects the accuracy of his theories one iota.

And while we're on the subject, much of this thread has focused on the potential for people to be adversely influenced by the dogmatic approach of Christian teaching. I can tell you from personal but still reasonably youthful experience that it wasn't that long ago that children's illustrated bibles still drew Jesus as a white man with blonde hair and blue eyes...and they were printed well after Darwin wrote his scientific notes...

Just a thought...

LW

LW

ask your self right now do you really want to do this again?

2 new arguments and 1 old one, as i recall from last time your first set of comments the ones we were laughing at were the ones from some 90's book by robert somthingwww.jameshartforcongress.com...

but here we have bonafied genuine Darwin woohooo!

now lets have some fun ehh?

THESE are ACTUAL quotes from his booklet!
Most of what happened in that thread you refer to, was, "so what if he was racist? Everybody was." and "He didn't say that"

no no we didnt

this was i beleive the "why do people laugh at creationsists"*thread where you came in with your crazy zany misquotes and said words to the effect of "and dont try and just say everyone was racist" so we didnt, i have below becasue i felt like it and you didnt put that clause in this time

*actual words used

Not to mention his racism and don't dismiss it with the "Everybody was doing it", clause!

Originally posted by Clearskies

It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

sorry what?

he is highlighting how vacination and other medical treatmensts have prolonged the lives and saved many who would have died from various medical causes and allowed them to breed passing on those traits to thier children

he then also says this very different to how live stock on farms is handled

sorry nothing racist here, he doesnt claim the irish are weaker or the blacks or the jews or the freemasons or mrs dowey down at number 27 you know the one who's children always have runny noses and are always dirty

Or as Mr. Greg puts the case:

F please see me after class

At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout
the world. .

social commentry! no where does he say its a good thing, no where does he say it sounds like fun or that he hopes to take part, its a future prediction on where he beleives the world will be heading based on what he see's hapening around him

if i say i dont beleive in 50 years time the state of Israel will exist, does this make me anti-semetic?a nazi? no it means based on what i see happening in the world around me i believe it will no longer be there

if i said in 50 years time the state of Isreal will be gone and all the jews will be kicked out like they deserve and hopefully persecuted that would then be very racist .. see the differance

clear seriously stop copy pasting flimsy rubish from a website by someone with a worse education then my 10 year old niece

there is plenty of proof Darwin's beliefs by todays standards would be classed as racist but in polite christian society back then it was the norm,

people for years beleived the earth the center of the universe and everything went around it, this beleief didnt make them idiots it just means they didnt know any differently or better or they hadnt devised a way to disprove it,

someone who beleived the earth was the center of the galaxy would now be considered a moron, as someone who today holds the same beliefs as victorian england would be termed a racist

and if you really want to go down this route im gonna have to make a really really really long post listing all the racist, sexist, homophobic bits in the bible so we can compare books properly

* sorry my appologies it was the "Surely this will silence a lot of you..." thread about the church of england appologising to Darwin

[edit on 28/10/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 28/10/08 by noobfun]

Good for them-I suppose one opinion (theological or not) is just as credible,feasible,plausible and valid as another... and anyone truly secure in their religious beleifs would not be offended anyway.
I do think Mr Dawkins raises some very good points (that urgently need to be addressed) regarding organised religious institutions being afforded ´special treatment´ in the form of tax breaks,unearned respect,the right to brainwash children and ´the right not to be offended´.
What about the secular majority of the UK?
Are they not offended when politicans pander to these organised religions by giving them prioritized ´special treatment´ over other citizens?

I honestly think this bus slogan idea is a great idea and a refreshing change from the usual propaganda espoused by agenda based religious spokesmen and ´government approved´ non provable beleif systems.

Lets hear from the ´other side´ for a change-they´ve got just as much right to voice their opinions as everybody else.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by noobfun


Strange! I looked on that thread, "Why do people laugh at Creationists" and I could only find ONE post by me to Heike about a conversion story I heard.
I couldn't find ANYTHING about racism.

ANYWAY, if you can look at what I cited from Darwin and see none(racism), I really don't know what to say.

My faith in God is still strong, even as Dawkins rants on...........

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Clearskies


you may notice i put a disclaimer at the bottom when i remebered what thread it was and went in to retrieve a few comments made

no seriously the bits you have highlighted no one without extreme bias COULD find them racist

why? .. becasue your again posting stuff that isnt essentially racist and pretending it is by getting all self indignant

its easy to prove that darwin was racist* using his own writing its just you seem incapable of it

and his racism doesnt effect how right/wring he would then be

gods the biggest racist ever invented*(he said every one but jews are scum and will not be saved no matter how much they want to be..and yes that includes you) but in your mind gods good and right


*racist by todays standards

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by Clearskies

 

you may notice i put a disclaimer at the bottom when i remebered what thread it was and went in to retrieve a few comments made

Disclaimer?
So you got it from another thread? Which one?

no seriously the bits you have highlighted no one without extreme bias COULD find them racist

Descent of Man, Chapter 5

Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits:

At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout
the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it
will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Speaks for itself.

why? .. becasue your again posting stuff that isnt essentially racist and pretending it is by getting all self indignant

its easy to prove that darwin was racist* using his own writing its just you seem incapable of it

???

and his racism doesnt effect how right/wring he would then be

Yes.

gods the biggest racist ever invented*(he said every one but jews are scum and will not be saved no matter how much they want to be..and yes that includes you) but in your mind gods good and right

God sent prophets to the gentiles, so that they would be saved, too.
Jonah for one.
But, if He decided not to save some idol-worshipping child-sacrificers, it was His choice.
ALL who came from Noah knew right from wrong and some decided to worship stars and creatures.

Originally posted by Clearskies
Disclaimer?
So you got it from another thread? Which one?

* sorry my appologies it was the "Surely this will silence a lot of you..." thread about the church of england appologising to Darwin

www.abovetopsecret.com... heres the thread

break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Speaks for itself.

the bold part is the only part that can be taken as racist ... but this wasnt the part held up as a bastion of racism as i say its easy to show but your not doing it

and his racism doesnt effect how right/wring he would then be

Yes.

so your agreeing him bieng racist has no effect on the validity of the theory? or what it has become in scientific terms

gods the biggest racist ever invented*(he said every one but jews are scum and will not be saved no matter how much they want to be..and yes that includes you) but in your mind gods good and right

God sent prophets to the gentiles, so that they would be saved, too.
Jonah for one.
But, if He decided not to save some idol-worshipping child-sacrificers, it was His choice.
ALL who came from Noah knew right from wrong and some decided to worship stars and creatures.

gentiles bieng anyone not jewish ..... but god says quite emfatically only the israelits will be saved, the rest is after the fact adition to THE word of god

but even by your wording above, christianity isnt the true word of god, judaism is but christians will be tolerated in jewish heaven

guess the nazi christians are in trouble then ... all that time beleiving an acceptable lower religeon then they go and slaughter all the true chosen ones of thier god

[edit on 28/10/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun



what Bible have you been reading,because what you state is not in mine....have you read the epistle to the Romans?

ROMANS 1:16


"For I am not ashamed of The Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of GOD unto salvation to every one that believeth; 'to the Jew first', and also to the Gentile".

why to the Jew first?

DEUTERONOMY 7:6

"FOR THOU (THE JEWISH PEOPLE) ART A 'HOLY' PEOPLE UNTO THE LORD THY GOD: THE LORD THY GOD HATH 'CHOSEN' THEE TO BE A 'SPECIAL' PEOPLE UNTO HIMSELF, ABOVE ALL PEOPLE THAT ARE UPON THE FACE OF THE EARTH."

In addition to the same gospel, both Jewish and Gentile believers enjoy the same spiritual position as members of the family of God. Romans 11:17 states that the natural branches (unbelieving Jews) were broken off and the wild olive tree branches (Gentiles) were grafted into the olive tree. Along with the remnant (believing Jews), these Gentiles enjoy the blessings of the new covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31-37

Galatians 3:26-29 also affirms this truth. This passage affirms that all believers are spiritually equal before God.

I'd take a wild guess that Isaac Newton would probably have believed both himself and his people to be superior to African civilisation. Does that mean gravity doesn't exist?

S

reply to post by budski


Wow...I didn't think the Brits were THAT crazy. There is proof of a God. Who created us?

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by budski

 

Wow...I didn't think the Brits were THAT crazy. There is proof of a God. Who created us?

theres proof we were created by one processs or another .. we are here

unless you can prove it was god then your making assumptions on faith alone

and trust me us brits think the Yanks are the crazies for allowing fundamnetalism to take over even the religeous christian folk over here share a similar view for the most part

unfortunatley the evils of fundamentalism are seeping in both from the islamic wahabism(spelling?) movement and the evangelical christians

looks europe and the uk are going to be the battle ground for the 2 largest groups of loonies around

london and every other city town and hamlet around it has gone to hell anyway,
but what i can't get my head a round is that if their wasn't a god then human life would be worthless as their would not be any reprocusstions(sp?) for your actions (except for legal)
so the signs should probaly say "go on, do drugs nobody cares about you anyway" or "marriage is fun and tradional, just can't remember what its all about" you can proberly(sp?) think of some less sarcastic things to put

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
london and every other city town and hamlet around it has gone to hell anyway,
but what i can't get my head a round is that if their wasn't a god then human life would be worthless as their would not be any reprocusstions(sp?) for your actions (except for legal)
so the signs should probaly say "go on, do drugs nobody cares about you anyway" or "marriage is fun and tradional, just can't remember what its all about" you can proberly(sp?) think of some less sarcastic things to put

The extension of this argument is that God is the framework for all our behaviour - and that just isn't so. The framework is our society. The reason it's not "right" to murder is because it's not in our society's interests to do so, not because God says we shouldn't. The fact is that what God's/Jesus's teachings do is say what's in society's interests, but morality is a social construct which religion supports, not the other way round.

Not that any of that means that God isn't right, or that God doesn't exist...

LW

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
london and every other city town and hamlet around it has gone to hell anyway,

define gone to hell? what part of it is so evil its ungodly?

the place the people? all the people?

but what i can't get my head a round is that if their wasn't a god then human life would be worthless as their would not be any reprocusstions(sp?) for your actions (except for legal)

as weasel pointed out religeon supports social morality not be labeled the owner and creator of

did everyone who wasnt familiar with the bible go around raping and killing and stealing at will in thier own communities?

we have our morale code from mutual survivability found through all of the natural world where species live in social groups they protect each other help each other teach each other help rasie others young

this instinct gives each group a set of social rules and a self governing group enforcment

doesnt it strike you as odd that tribes who have remaind pretty untouched by the outside world have thier own rule system that views much of what we rule as bad also as bad, it doesnt matter if they beleive in animal spirits and sun gods or what ever thier beliefs the moral code is similar

so the signs should probaly say "go on, do drugs nobody cares about you anyway" or "marriage is fun and tradional, just can't remember what its all about" you can proberly(sp?) think of some less sarcastic things to put

im an athiest i know whats right and wrong i try and help people in need and people who arnt but a helping hand would make life easier for them

i am deffinatley against hard drugs and frown against soft drug use, i beleive when people make a commitment to each other they should honour and uphold it ...... so how is it not having a god makes me imorale?

your suggested messages preach a message of "theres no hope for humanity so lets really mess it up good and proper" as long as thier is one reasonable caring person in the world humanity isnt a total loss

if your religeon is leading you down a dark path like this maybe its time to try a different religeon or no religeon at all or at least a different path within your chosen religeon

[edit on 3/11/08 by noobfun]

Another link on this here and also there has been some controversy surrounding this here.

If people can put things like this up can I get an advertising campaign going for:

The Egyptians probably didn't build the pyramids or sphinx.

Edit: added quote code

[edit on 16-1-2009 by george_gaz]