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.

 

'Praise Darwin, Evolve Beyond Belief' billboards go up

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Lamarkism came BEFORE Darwin.
(Though, they seem very similar.)
Why would these communists laud Darwin, if it didn't help them kill religion?

And, YES Communists can be VERY confusing!
Like when Trotsky(Lev Bronstein) stole his name from a neighboring landowner, only to nearly be blown up in his train the real Trotsky's son or had his Naval Captain bring a fleet back through the icy sea and when he did, Trotsky ordered them to destroy them, which stupefied the man to refusal and he had him shot by Chinese soldiers!
Queer indeed!

[edit on 12-2-2009 by Clearskies]




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


Let me clarify as athieism is a very broad belief structure. Some athiests will argue with certainty that there is no God, just as the religous person will argue with certainty that there is a God. I consider myself Agnostic and my position is not one of not caring. I just simply do not know. No convincing evidence has ever been presented to me either way to make an informed decision, so I just don't know. Most dealings I have with athiests are in the form of "knowing" no God exists.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Double Post....

and not a one liner.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Maybe most of the atrocities were NOT carried out by Stalin, but Trotsky and Lenin.
Both of whom adhered to Marxism!


And so did Engels!

linky


Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by melatonin
 


Lamarkism came BEFORE Darwin.
(Though, they seem very similar.)
Why would these communists laud Darwin, if it didn't help them kill religion?


Aye, it did. But Darwin's ideas superceded Larmarckism. They were better.

Marx just attempted to use a contemporary idea to justify his own. Evolution doesn't necessarily 'kill religion'. Darwin's weren't the only ideas used by early marxists to justify their position - see Engels


Anyone with even the most basic of knowledge of what evolutionary theory is would see that the very notion of communism and socialism is completely in contrast to evolution by natural selection. It is more fitting of capitalism in mechanism.

Also, communism need not be atheistic.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


But they are still not Marx himself.

You can claim to follow someone and not understand what their goal is, or what they intend.

Take for instance some who call themselves Christian. Do you really think Jesus intended the Inquisition? Does anything Jesus himself says lead you to believe he wanted people tortured and killed in his name? Because I have read the entire New Testament several times, and the Gospel of Thomas as well, and I see him saying he wants us to love one another, not to judge, to be kind and compassionate. And, he is pretty darn consistent about it too. However, atrocities have been committed under the guise of Christianity.

I would say that is precisely the same problem you run up against with people using the writings of Marx to justify their own atrocities. Does Marx ever say anywhere that he wanted the slaughter of millions? I dont think so. I have NOT read his entire works, but I am sure that would have come up in one of my philosophy classes if he had.

You cannot blame the creator of an ideology for the actions of their supposed followers, unless of course those followers are following precisely. I dont blame Jesus for the Inquisition. He said nothing at all to indicate that would be ok. In fact, he indicated in opposition to that sort of behavior. I dont blame Marx for how his ideas were interpreted. To the best of my knowledge, he did not intend for millions of people to be slaughtered by those claiming to follow him.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Yes religion IS an idea that can be held closed-minded. Because there are rules in religion that say God thinks for you. The job of the scientist at this point would be to find a wedge in which they can explain themselves without offending sensibilities. This whole idea that Religion and science HAVE TO BE mutually exclusive is ridiculous..

I say this because the words "Let there be light" sounds alot like the big bang to me.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
That's a sweet billboard! I want one!

I like it, so that's really all I have to say. It's funny, I don't think it was intended to make Christians feel bad. Maybe just provide a suggestion...

You know... how Christians suggest things to atheists all the time? About going to Hell or needed to be saved? I kind of think this is fair. Being a non-Christian in America is not a fun experience.

Oh, and Capitalism does not = Evolution because Capitalism is rigged and has nothing to do with individual abilities or disabilities or intelligence. It depends on luck, your last name, how you look, and who your connections are.

[edit on 2/12/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
Yes religion IS an idea that can be held closed-minded. Because there are rules in religion that say God thinks for you. The job of the scientist at this point would be to find a wedge in which they can explain themselves without offending sensibilities. This whole idea that Religion and science HAVE TO BE mutually exclusive is ridiculous..


I agree. I do think that they are different ways of thinking, but that a scientific approach is better. But I still agree they need not be mutually exclusive.

The problem is when they collide.


I say this because the words "Let there be light" sounds alot like the big bang to me.


Perhaps. Of course, without wanting to offend sensibilities, the bible also proposes talking snakes and zombies roaming the holy land.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Please, don't EVER link to a pdf file without a warning!
My computer almost shut down!
Thanks!



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


True. But it also describes the rise of the continents much as would a scientist. You can and should ignore the talking snakes and zombies, but how do you explain cell mitosis to an unsophisticated cultures existing 3000 years ago? This is something that I think religious people should understand. If they studied science as much as the denounced it they would see the parallels between the two.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Anyone with even the most basic of knowledge of what evolutionary theory is would see that the very notion of communism and socialism is completely in contrast to evolution by natural selection. It is more fitting of capitalism in mechanism.


Adams Smith's capitalism to be specific. Not the bastardized version we today commonly call "capitalism."

Adam Smith's version of a "free market" was a very beautiful description of natural selection working in economics. But we dont have a free market or anything even approaching it. Nor do most proponents of "capitalism" want a truly free market.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Yes, Engels was not a likable fellow;
Wiki
I couldn't read that link.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
You can and should ignore the talking snakes and zombies


That's the problem right there, what is to be 'ignored' or interpreted another way is entirely up to the reader. To you those parts are allegoric, to others they are literal.

Now I don't doubt there are probably some stories in the Bible that are based on actual events, but which parts? And what is their accuracy? Without facts everything is up to interpretation.

If the Bible (and other religious books) are merely an allegoric story telling of the Natural world, then why is religion needed?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Perhaps. Of course, without wanting to offend sensibilities, the bible also proposes talking snakes and zombies roaming the holy land.


Which could also be allegory or parable. If one reads allegory and parable as literal truth, it can lead one to some interesting beliefs. Perhaps the authors of those stories were trying to convey something that didnt lend itself easily to direct explanation.

One of the problems with dogmatic Christians is that they take parable as literal truth. One of the problems with dogmatic science lovers is that they take the same parables as literal truth and mock it.


What is similar? They are both taking parable or allegory as literal truth. What is different, one accepts it as truth and the other denies it. There is a third way. Accept parable as not being literal truth.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


And if the flying zombies and talking snakes are metaphoric then why isn't creation? Because Creationists need Jeebus for a security blanket.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
Religion does not require evidence, it requires faith which is the opposite, with science we can learn the hows. With religion we can learn , ah well nothing really only how to suspend critical thinking and reason.


I'd have to agree there


I think this billboard also raises the very important point that freedom 'from' religion is just as important as freedom for it.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


Religion is only needed by those who seek control over others' thoughts. That's it. But to those who are religious and not part of the elite, it offers comfort in an otherwise overwhelming world. And this is understandable for many reasons.

But with all the knowledge we have, we now have the capability of more valid interpretations of the Bible and other creation myths that make more sense.

Now, if this is true, then the Bible is just an allegorical science book, then it does, in fact hold some sort of credibility. So then one must ask:

Where did the Bible come from that it is so accurate?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
Please, don't EVER link to a pdf file without a warning!
My computer almost shut down!
Thanks!


lol

386SX?

Here's a html link, just for you. It's a good read.

www.marxists.org...


Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by melatonin
 


True. But it also describes the rise of the continents much as would a scientist. You can and should ignore the talking snakes and zombies, but how do you explain cell mitosis to an unsophisticated cultures existing 3000 years ago? This is something that I think religious people should understand. If they studied science as much as the denounced it they would see the parallels between the two.


As noted above, then we get into pick and choose. Which bits are metaphorical, which aren't? How do we know? So it says 'let there be light' in genesis, yet it suggests that fruit- and seed-bearing plants preceeded the sun, birds preceded land animals and many other erroneous claims.

Isn't really a science text is it?

[edit on 12-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


WE ALL have a CHOICE to believe in the supernatural or not.
The problem with communism and Church (Vatican) rule, is that we don't!
It's freedom OF Religion, not freedom FROM religion!
Unless your an atheist. But, don't impose your non-belief on me!



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
Now, if this is true, then the Bible is just an allegorical science book, then it does, in fact hold some sort of credibility. So then one must ask:

Where did the Bible come from that it is so accurate?


You're assuming the only way the people who told and wrote of creation myths and other religious texts/scriptures knew the information is if they received it from God.

There are other possibilities that don't automatically involve receiving the information directly from the Creator of the Universe.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by converge]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join