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.

 

Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

page: 9
44
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Jobeycool
 


Why do I feel that you have missed my point?

He WAS a catholic, that started the Lutheran church from which were formed all the other (non-orthodox) churches. SImilarly, Jesus WAS a Jew. He also seems to have started the world's largest religion, which I can tell you is NOT JUDAISM.

Well I think people need to read Jesus's sermon on the mount to realize all of us are guilty of hating each other.




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I don't know how anyone can argue with the philosophy of what Jesus taught.I think the miracles and stuff the bibles claims He did can only be accepted through faith.Jesus Christ teachings cannot be beatten when it coems to love and right and wrong. In my Opinion...



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
. . .
Would it be ok for politicians to teach that . . . Asians have less nerve endings . . .

I can show you absolute (creationist-style) proof that Asians do in fact have less nerve endings.
You don't believe me?
Or did my clarification already give the game away?



The Tip

The trunk tip is one of the key differences between African and Asian elephants. The African elephant has two fingers on the tip while the Asian has only one. This affects the way they use the trunk so while the African will actually grasp an object with between its fingers the Asian will use more of a scooping movement and hold objects against the underside of the trunk. This does not appear to limit Asian elephant's ability to manipulate objects.

The trunk tip packed with nerve endings, is according to research by Rasmussen and Munger in 1996, the most sensitive tissue ever studied!


Well, you didn't specify which species of Asians.


And I did indicate I would not abide by the established rules of logic, such as not quoting out of context.



edit on 6/12/10 by Kailassa because: to - do



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jennybee35
 


There are a lot of intermediary species between ours and apes common ancestor. That was just one of them that I happened to have saved in my favourites.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
So let me get this straight...

The thought that humanity was created by a higher power - be it a force that human begins cannot sense, an omnipotent being/race of beings or extraterrestrials - should be classified as a mental disorder.

Hey, thanks for not reading anything about the thread beyond the headlines.
Anyhow...the speculation of some greater divine order is fine...the teaching it and holding it as factual based on nothing is what is being discussed here


Yet the belief that there is no meaning to life, no higher purpose and total darkness for all eternity after you die is logical.

This is all your speculation. My life has meaning and purpose...sorry if your in total darkness, perhaps you need to talk to someone.


And then we'll cap it all off with the ultimate solution to every progressive's problems: we'll create government regulation to silence the voices of those that disagree.

Agreed...if someone is selling you a bottle of liquid saying it will cure cancer, and it doesn't...I think that person should be removed and fined or imprisoned.
Pushing some bull forward as factual with no basis to back it up should be dealt with in a civil society



I think we found out who the insane one is in this thread. We don't have to look any further than the OP.

Ahh..clever...answer nothing, twist meanings, then call me insane..yep, this is religious rationale at its finest.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Jobeycool
 


Why do I feel that you have missed my point?

He WAS a catholic, that started the Lutheran church from which were formed all the other (non-orthodox) churches. SImilarly, Jesus WAS a Jew. He also seems to have started the world's largest religion, which I can tell you is NOT JUDAISM.

Actually, Jesus hated religion...it was corrupt, and used as a way to destroy and control the lesser people.

If the chap from the bible popped by today, he would be the guy christians would be saying is going to hell. lol



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
ok
Here is the conclusion

With the exception of like 4 people...nobody in this thread actually read the OPs.

social experiment complete..the word was not used by pretty much all (congratulations to the very few that read and posted the keyword proving you read it.


So...with that in mind, I realize reading things is hard for most here...I will make a post with pictures..lovely pictures..that way you don't have to strain your brains or have an attention span greater than a fruitfly to get the point.


First off: Athiest Arrogance-


Next: Danger of religion-


Next: Religious tolerance-

(the words - God With Us- Nazi belt buckle)

Comparison: Athiest propaganda verses Religious propaganda (which one = mental terrorism)
Religion:


Athiest:



Religious people -should- believe anything, argument: we believe without proof:


Face it...if your reading this...you are lost..you will not change your view even when you know it to be false.


As athiests, there is but a single core message we want to send to your children though...bypass the ignorant and =arrogant= insane parents and give only one core lesson:



Enjoy...hopefully you lot were able to pay attention enough to the pretty pictures.

-sparkle-



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
i dont think 'insanity' is the correct term to use and stereotype millions of people with

insanity: a relatively permanent disorder of the mind.

religious faith is not permanent. it requires continuous convincing to believe in the ideals of religion/creationism,. Religious belief contradicts nearly everything in reality, and thus is always under attack by ones rational self. In order to protect ones ideals, whatever their beliefs are, they must surround themselves with like minded people who support the belief of fantasy. None of this is permanent, and people can be brought around to wanting to understand the laws and forces that dictate the universe. All religious people constantly have a 'struggle of faith', which is basically just s struggle between logic/reason and irrationality/belief. Even mother teresa died an atheist.

I think a more fair term in psychosis.

psychosis: a mental disorder characterized by symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality.

and just for clarity.

faith: belief that does not rest of logical proof or material evidence.

as i was reading through this thread, i read some people claim that science is arrogant, and that religious belief is humble, well that just couldnt be further from the truth. Religion is arrogant, it teaches unproven unfounded ideals, and presents them as facts. There is nothing factual about religious doctarine and dogma.

Science is the most humble approach to understanding the universe. It starts of by asking a question, and a scientist will formulate a hypothesis and theory and run tests based on the evidence. You will NEVER hear a real scientist claim anything is 100% true, that is an unscientific approach. However you may hear, that it is highly probable that any theory is this way due to evidence provided. Publishing a scientific paper is one of the hardest things to due. Someone creates a paper, in which the scientific community dissects and criticizes, it is an incredibly humbling experience.

moving on.

i would like to say, that i would really like to believe in an almighty loving caring supreme deity, who gives a personal interest in my well being, but at the end of the day, its just not true, it is unfounded dogmatic superstition. Such beliefs can be used to justify anything, which makes them dangerous. In my view, if one wants to be religous, you have to embrace all of superstition. I dont think its fair to claim that you believe in a religion that has talking snakes and magical trees, and a man walked on water, healed the sick etc etc, and not believe that Mithras was born from a stone, or that horus takes 12 steps across a sky and fights apep on the darkside, or that zeus lives on top of mount Olympus, or that mohammed accended into heaven on a winged chariot, or that the red sea was parted etc etc.Its kinda like saying you believe in gremlins, but you dont believe in goblins. Or you believe in ghosts, but not poltergeists.

To me, believing in a God, who created the universe billions of years ago, and has had no interaction with it ever since, is an acceptable answer, i would disagree, but such a belief can not be proven or unproven. Young earth creationists, make a grand claim, which requires them to provide evidence to support their claim, otherwise it is baseless and nonsensical.

"I contend that we are both atheists, i just believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible Gods, you will understand why i dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


. . . me personally speculating...and again, keep in mind this is just my thoughts which I would immediately frame as such, is that the fused cells between our species and a ape is curious. That does make me think of genetic engineering..but I will not therefore start a church up and demand schools teach my speculation as an equal truth... Hell, I flat out believe in the ancient astronauts theory, but I also deem my belief as not even remotely close to a scientific absolute. Until undeniable proof of my belief is found and agreed upon by the majority of sciences, being peer reviewed, etc...then it simply has no room in a classroom...but rather, should be simply discussed in a coffee house informally as the interesting and compelling speculation it is. . . .


For these fused cells to be an indication of genetic engineering, they would have to be beneficial in some way to modern humans. If they are not beneficial it is more likely they were the result of a genetic accident, which was able to spread because of the small number of humans (or ancestors of humans,) surviving at that time.

As I understand it, this mutation was in no way advantageous, and was most likely a reproductive disadvantage at first, before it became established.

Do you have evidence to support any advantage from the cell fusion?



edit on 6/12/10 by Kailassa because: formatting



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I keep seeing the claim that we have not discovered any transitional fossils between primates and humans, well I'm here to show that this claim is completely false. Here is a list of all the transitional fossils we have found between the earliest primates and modern humans. This page also lists the transitional fossils between other mammals.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils - Primates



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Some of the things that some creationists teach are downright silly and not based on evidence one little bit.

That said (and using a bit of maths here) statistically it is more likely that energy has learned or evolved to become conscious and to choose its future to enable it to exist than it is for 'us' of maybe 'other life' in this universe to be the first.

We know conciousness exists, we know there cannot be 'nothing' therefore the most likely scenario is that at some point in the infinite past of 'energy' it became conscious and created, not only this universe, but most likely (maybe infinitly) more universes where the laws of physics allow matter to exist for the longest possible time.

Its the people who think this is a unique and random universe and we are unique and random conciousness that are a bit mad. We are tiny little specks and anything we can imagine in our wildest dreams has most likey alreday been manifested by energy (you know, the thing that makes up everything)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369


I think we found out who the insane one is in this thread. We don't have to look any further than the OP.

Ahh..clever...answer nothing, twist meanings, then call me insane..yep, this is religious rationale at its finest.


have you not done the very same thing from the opening post? calling creation believers ignorant, constantly repeating that they 'didn't read' your original post, and repeatedly mocking and demeaning them?

I believe by faith in my Creator. Yes, by faith. But the simple fact is, since NO ONE was there when whatever happened...happened - whether a big bang, a gradual evolving, or an instantaneous creation spoken into existence by a Creator God. No, faith is the operative word here, whether one has faith in a deity creator, or that transspeciation is possible, when its never actually been observed.

If you wish to have faith in your so-called science, thats fine with me, but then let us peacefully have faith in our creator beliefs. Dont act so smug and arrogant about something you cannot be certain of.
edit on 6/12/10 by TrailGator because: oops screwed up the quoting part.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Are you trying to gracefully shut us down? "Cause I don't think these folks are thru tearing each other a new one yet! I'm afraid that your OP has started a whirlwind of religious/atheistic epic proportions!



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by jennybee35
. . .
me personally speculating...and again, keep in mind this is just my thoughts which I would immediately frame as such, is that the fused cells between our species and a ape is curious. That does make me think of genetic engineering..but I will not therefore start a church up and demand schools teach my speculation as an equal truth... Hell, I flat out believe in the ancient astronauts theory, but I also deem my belief as not even remotely close to a scientific absolute. Until undeniable proof of my belief is found and agreed upon by the majority of sciences, being peer reviewed, etc...then it simply has no room in a classroom...but rather, should be simply discussed in a coffee house informally as the interesting and compelling speculation it is. . . .


For these fused cells to be an indication of genetic engineering, they would have to be beneficial in some way to modern humans. If they are not beneficial it is more likely they were the result of a genetic accident, which was able to spread because of the small number of humans (or ancestors of humans,) surviving at that time.

As I understand it, this mutation was in no way advantageous, and was most likely a reproductive disadvantage at first, before it became established.

Do you have evidence to support any advantage from the cell fusion?


Well, lets use the proper word first..its the chromosomes that are stuck together (meh, didn't think I would get into a convo about this)

Evolutionary theory says that humans evolved from an ape ancestor who had a different number of chromosomes than modern day humans. Humans have 23 pairs and apes have 24.

The theory is that at some point two ape chromosomes fused to make a single human one. Why do we think this? Because when we look at human DNA, chromosome 2 looks just like two ape chromosomes stuck together.


The issue is that the fusion is actually an unlikely occurance..as far as advantages, well...since this is one of the more significant dna differences between us and apes, then I would venture to say it may be very significant...or not, it may be a clue that does nothing overall but is a signature of a scientist so we may one day see that humans were indeed products of genetic engineering.

Its a interesting hypothesis and allows for all kinds of speculation.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrailGator

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369


I think we found out who the insane one is in this thread. We don't have to look any further than the OP.

Ahh..clever...answer nothing, twist meanings, then call me insane..yep, this is religious rationale at its finest.


have you not done the very same thing from the opening post? calling creation believers ignorant, constantly repeating that they 'didn't read' your original post, and repeatedly mocking and demeaning them?

That is a social experiment I set up in the original post. a control to see who was and wasn't reading. a few seen it and put the keyword up. This is how social experiments work.



I believe by faith in my Creator. Yes, by faith. But the simple fact is, since NO ONE was there when whatever happened...happened - whether a big bang, a gradual evolving, or an instantaneous creation spoken into existence by a Creator God. No, faith is the operative word here, whether one has faith in a deity creator, or that transspeciation is possible, when its never actually been observed.

Often crimes happen when nobody is around...does that mean we should collectively throw our arms up and give up?
no...what happens is we attempt to find out anyhow- Fingerprimting, dna sampling, you know...science...investigation...that kind of useless stuff, often leading to an arrest.

Something happened 14 billion years ago (give or take). there are two groups...one taking cosmic fingerprints, checking movements, galaxy tracks, etc...the other side is throwing their arms up and saying "magic man did it, nothing more to know".


If you wish to have faith in your so-called science, thats fine with me, but then let us peacefully have faith in our creator beliefs. Dont act so smug and arrogant about something you cannot be certain of.
edit on 6/12/10 by TrailGator because: oops screwed up the quoting part.


I do not have "faith" in science, I use science...I do not have faith in my car...I use my car. If it breaks, I fix it (metaphorically..I suck at auto repair, I pay professionals to fix it) I do not lay hands on the engine block and pray for it to heal..I use the collective knowledge of science to find and fix the problem.

Next time you get a flat tire...pray for the tire to expand..let me know how that works out for ya



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Are you trying to gracefully shut us down? "Cause I don't think these folks are thru tearing each other a new one yet! I'm afraid that your OP has started a whirlwind of religious/atheistic epic proportions!


Meh, its all just star hoarding anyhow.
Couple ways to make a thread live to infinity and beyond is to simply mention politics or religion and voila...every armchair philosopher is at it.

But its a fun argument to have on the net anyhow...and by the end of it..nobody has changed from their original thinking.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Of course, that doesn't stop mom and dad from mentioning jesus every other second, or attributing all knowledge to the bible..and of course mixing in there religion 101. half hour teaching science, then 2 hours right after teaching religion and why science is wrong

here is a shining example of home schooled familys:


well, you just answered the initial question i had after reading the post.
so much anger.
westobro baptist is a ridiculous example to be using.
if they're christians, i'm the tooth fairy.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX







I really like this picture
Actually this picture really emphasizes the point I was trying to make.
Radicals of any stripe that want to enforce their world view on others are dangerous.
I do see how they portray the atheist as passive, not taking up weapons, however a "militant atheist" really only exists on the internet, and they are more like an "aggressive atheist".
This thread is the perfect example, also there are many famous "YouTubers" that are aggressive in literally preaching their atheistic belief system. And really from their perspective anybody who doesn't buy into it is just stupid and ignorant.
So is that any different than the mindset of the "Militant Muslim`` or ``Militant Christian``

edit on 6-12-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: added a line



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Success!!! I've found it! I knew there had to be a reason that some of the early replies used a word out of context,
Plus reaching the logical conclusion when you said it was a social experiment, I went back and read your original post
At least 3 times before I found it. Yes, I tend only to read the topic sentence of long paragraphs rather than reading
Right through (ironic for someone who has trouble writing a paragraph less than 6 lines long). But finally, at last, I
Know what the social experiment was.
Late, but better late than never.

Edit - the reason that the lines are [insert non-offensive term] is because posting screen and reading screen are different widths.
edit on 6/12/2010 by TheWill because: because: removing my own politically incorrect blunder..



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by slowisfast
well, you just answered the initial question i had after reading the post.
so much anger.
westobro baptist is a ridiculous example to be using.
if they're christians, i'm the tooth fairy.


Please explain to me why they are not how christians are and should be?

Do you not believe that God finds homosexuality to be an abomination? how many biblical quotes do you require before you believe?

Do you not believe God damns nations based on the actions of the nation or the tolerance given to its people?

Do you not believe it is written to turn away from those lost to God?

Westboro Baptist Church actually has it right...they are going with the literal word of "God". And that makes the pseudo-christians (will believe what suits me verses whats written) very uncomfortable.

You are conditioned by western society to not have passion in action, but rather just in anonymous postings. This is your issue...there is nothing you can say that will show westboro baptist church to be anything but a perfect example of how christianity is supposed to be. you have to resort to how you personally feel verses what is written..you will twist the bible and ignore massive clearly written chunks of it..

Not that I am complaining mind you, the bible is crazy, and we don't need too many crazy people anymore..the thousand+ years of dark age christian justice was enough..just saying, you cannot scorn the actual christians because they are...well, actual people speaking the biblical gods actual words and commandments...they are a manifestion of the bible...and if that makes you uncomfortable, well guess what...the biblical god makes you uncomfortable.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join