The Creation Museum

[superstring01]

Every word you've uttered thus far.

As do many secular organizations, but they do it without all the war, genocide, homophobia, sexism and oppression.

From approximately 10,000 years ago until today. You don't get to cherry pick a specific moment in time and say, "LOOK, A BAPTIST CHURCH CLEANED THE LITTER OFF THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY!!!" And call it good. We're talking from the beginning of human history until today.

With this two statements you identified your self . I feel sorry for your self, have a beautiful day.

So, you can't answer any of the points? Typical and expected.

~String

 

[synthesizer-patel]

String - I think you ae being a little bit hard on christian charitable efforts

 

[Kennyc]

Must be from Colorado Springs....the Family Values capital of the world.

 

[wellwisher]

The atheists have not yet advanced beyond being a parasite to religion. Without religion to dump on, there does not appear to be much in atheism, worth discussing, that can keep the attention of new recruits and inspire them to rise above. The hostility and negativity toward religion is at least exciting. Without it, atheism would be a boring. Isn't the best excitement for atheism in the religious battles?

This negative atheist approach, used for recruitment, actually has a logical explanation. It works the same way as mudslinging does in politics. If someone can not rise above, by offering ideas that can inspire its members, you can still create the illusion of rising, if you can create holes for others to stand in; lower their floor.

This hostility hole will appear to lower the religious opponent's height, allowing the atheist recruits to appear to get taller, without atheism making them rise. Without the mud and parasite approach to help digs holes for religion to stand in, it would become obvious that atheism will not allow you to rise above in actual reality. It only works with the hole illusion. This magic is what makes atheism a religion. It is based on irrational games and the magic of relative reference.

Politians use mud slinging for the same reasons. Most are entertainers playing the role of statesmen. Since they can not rise above, since they are only actors, they need to lower the floor on the other guy. The other guys needs to sink in the mud, allowing them to use this relative reference, like magic, so they appear to rise above. In the political season, the more mud slung by a person, the less qualified they are. They need the other person to sink very low, before they can even appear to rise. This is a good litmud test for incompetence.

The atheists are not rational enough to see hw this recruitment magic trick works. Even their top leaders need to digs holes for religion so they can appear taller. The magic trick does fool most atheists, which is why is it a form of religion based on faith in this magic.

I used to be an atheist when I was younger. Without the negativitytoward religion it got boring. Try a fully positive discussion of atheism and see if you can rise above, without digging holes for others. It will seem very boring and one will look elsewhere.

In all due respect, I am also dealing in the mud, to show you how the trick works. Sometimes it is easier to see when someone else does it. The urge will be to make mud for me to sink too, so nobody rises.

 

[spidergoat]

Wow, you mean atheism isn't a religion? Atheism isn't a goal unto itself, it was never meant to be, it's simply a position on god and the supernatural. It's a prerequisite to knowledge.

 

[Kennyc]

Ha! What a joke your post is wellwisher(really?) Religion is the parasite of humanity. Atheism is the NORMAL condition until infected. Yep you are infected.

 

[yaracuy]

Ha! What a joke your post is wellwisher(really?) Religion is the parasite of humanity. Atheism is the NORMAL condition until infected. Yep you are infected.[/QUOTE


Think what you are saying. I am a free will individual I have embraced the faith. I have screwed around probably just like you . That was normal condition of life , but because of the faith I don't doe it any more , Is that wrong?.
Now you used the word parasite . Would atheism exist if there would not be religion?
Now if everyone would be intellectually sophisticated like you there would not be need for religion because your kind knows everything ,While many of us who have faith in God we don't know everything , so we are searching.

 

[Kennyc]

Would atheism exist if there would not be religion?.

Yes. By virtue of the fact that it is the normal condition. NO ONE is born believing in gods, particularly not in a particular god. That belief only comes after they have been infected and brainwashed.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

That is not accurate. Many religions have more sophisticated and aware levels, or schools of thought, that do not posit such beings or such context for them - there is wisdom in many religions, often easily recognized by the willing.

Perhaps you are splitting philosophical hairs here, but since this is one of the science subforums and not the philosophy subforum, we should stick with consensus definitions. The consensus definition of "religion" includes belief in a supernatural power. Philosophies like Buddhism (at least the American variety) do not satisfy this definition.

Hey brother can you see yourself as a DICTATOR I have to play by your rule or otherwise I am out.

These are the rules of the website, not mine. Repeating a falsified assertion, without rebutting the falsification, comprises intellectual dishonesty, which is the worst form of trolling in a place of science and scholarship. Trolling is a bannable offense on SciForums. If you wish to rebut my challenge, then please do so.

Were did you got this that religionists are attempting to destroy civilization ?

From history. Every two, three or four generations, one or more sects of Abrahamic religionists rise up in an orgy of violence and attempt to kill everyone who does not agree with their own model of the supernatural universe. They obliterated two entire civilizations: Aztec and Inca. They fought a war among themselves for 100 years, which we now euphemistically refer to as "The Reformation." The Christians of Europe ganged up on the Jews, the smallest Abrahamist sect, and made antisemitism one of the defining traits of Christendom for 1500 years, culminating in the Holocaust, their failed attempt to literally exterminate them. Today the Christians have re-launched the Crusades and are bombing Muslim nations on the flimsiest of pretexts, while the various Muslim sects are fighting among themselves. In aggregate, the Christians, Muslims and Jews are poised to start a Nuclear Holy War which may actually destroy civilization.

Brother Can you tell me How did Mao, Stalin , Pol pot, I forgot the Albanian clown name , and many other of your kind contributed to upgrade civilization.

You commit the universal error of blaming the evils of communism on atheism. Its slogan "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability," is an elaboration of Karl Marx's favorite passage in the Book of Acts. Communism is in fact an offshoot of Christianity and could never have existed without the impetus of Christianity and its irrational fairy tales. Can you imagine any self-respecting Jew, Hindu or Confucian inventing an economic philosophy based upon the absurd notion that what a man takes from civilization does not have to correlate with what he gives back?

Yep, but I think the body count is higher for atheism, in fact.

You make the same mistake. Do not blame communism on atheism or atheists. It is a Christian philosophy that has been taken to an extreme. "Give everybody what they want and don't give a damn about where it's all supposed to come from. Let God worry about that."

Religion is the parasite of humanity. Atheism is the NORMAL condition until infected.

Ironically and unfortunately, this is most probably not true. The legends, images, rituals and other motifs that comprise religion occur in nearly every culture in nearly every era. This makes them what Jung calls archetypes, elements of our collective unconscious. Jung died before DNA was well understood, but we would now restate his archetypal theory by saying that archetypes are pre-programmed into our synapses by our DNA, and that we are thus born with them. This is the reason that religious faith is so strong: something that we have known since birth feels more true than any knowledge we acquire later through reasoning and learning.

Jung pointed out that all of the traditional polytheistic religions have the same set of 23 gods, and just give them different names. Abrahamism compresses this rich model of the human spirit into a pathetic one-dimensional model in which everything in the universe is crammed onto a linear scale of good versus evil, but still (according to Jung) Abrahamism retains many of the fundamental archetypes of all religions.

Apparently this instinctive set of beliefs was passed down genetically. Most instincts are survival traits, such as running away from a large animal with both eyes in front of its face. Others are more difficult to understand. Perhaps religion was a survival trait in an era whose dangers we can't imagine. Or perhaps it's an accidental mutation passed down through one of our species's genetic bottlenecks.

But in any case it does, in fact, appear to be natural. Yet that's no excuse to put up with it. Many behaviors we inherited from our Stone Age ancestors are natural, but we've managed to transcend them and build a civilization.

 

[Kennyc]

...."Ironically and unfortunately, this is most probably not true. The legends, images, rituals and other motifs that comprise religion occur in nearly every culture in nearly every era. This makes them what Jung calls archetypes, elements of our collective unconscious. ..

That is simply wrong. There is no proof of the collective unconscious. It was Jungs theory, but nothing supports the theory. There are however many physical aspects of our brains and psyches (which I won't go into) that provide a fruitful place to make up gods, but we ARE NOT born with them.

 

[billvon]

The atheists have not yet advanced beyond being a parasite to religion.

Which is accurate as saying that religious moderates have not advanced beyond being parasites on the TRULY religious extremists.

The hostility and negativity toward religion is at least exciting. Without it, atheism would be a boring.

Since there are far more religious types attacking atheists than there are atheists attacking religion, one could make the argument that hostility and negativity are more a part of the religious side of things.

The atheists are not rational enough to see hw this recruitment magic trick works. Even their top leaders need to digs holes for religion so they can appear taller.

Religions have popes, bishops, mullahs, rabbis - a whole panoply of hierarchical leadership created to defend their beliefs and attempt to spread those beliefs to others. Atheists don't. They don't really need to.

 

[gmilam]

This negative atheist approach, used for recruitment, actually has a logical explanation.

Why yes, it does. We are tired of self righteous pricks telling us we are going to burn in hell. Simple as that.

 

[yaracuy]

Why yes, it does. We are tired of self righteous pricks telling us we are going to burn in hell. Simple as that.

Since you don't believe in hell so why do you pit attention to that .

Same as I don't believe in your B.S. about primordial soup , I am not attacking you belief. You are happy your way , let us be happy our way.

 

[yaracuy]

Which is accurate as saying that religious moderates have not advanced beyond being parasites on the TRULY religious extremists.



Since there are far more religious types attacking atheists than there are atheists attacking religion, one could make the argument that hostility and negativity are more a part of the religious side of things.



Religions have popes, bishops, mullahs, rabbis - a whole panoply of hierarchical leadership created to defend their beliefs and attempt to spread those beliefs to others. Atheists don't. They don't really need to.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Is not Dawkins your priest ? were he sells his B.S. to make himself wealthy
does he contribute to charity, or just enlarge his followers ?

 

[superstring01]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Is not Dawkins your priest ? were he sells his B.S. to make himself wealthy
does he contribute to charity, or just enlarge his followers ?

Dawkins is a scientist, who proves his claims through the scientific method. No faith in allah-the-the-murderer needed.

~String

 

[billvon]

Is not Dawkins your priest?

Nope, just a scientist.

were he sells his B.S. to make himself wealthy

Nope. He is far from rich; most bishops probably have a higher net worth than he does.

does he contribute to charity

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the Missouri flood relief effort via the Red Cross. Some other atheist charities who helped:

Partners in Non-Believers Giving Aid
Atheist Alliance International
Atheists Helping the Homeless
Atheists United
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Freedom From Religion Foundation
James Randi Educational Foundation
Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
New Humanist magazine
Rationalist Association
Rationalist International
Secular Student Alliance
Skeptics in the Pub
The British Humanist Association
The International Humanist and Ethical Union
The Reason Project
The Skeptic Magazine
The Skeptics Society

or just enlarge his followers ?

Why would he do that? Are they too skinny?

 

[spidergoat]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Is not Dawkins your priest ? were he sells his B.S. to make himself wealthy
does he contribute to charity, or just enlarge his followers ?

Who cares what he does with his money? I don't.

 

[gmilam]

Since you don't believe in hell so why do you pit attention to that .

Same as I don't believe in your B.S. about primordial soup , I am not attacking you belief. You are happy your way , let us be happy our way.

Telling someone they are going to burn in hell is a judgment on a person's character. It's saying that they are an evil person based entirely on their non-belief of your fantasy. It's explicitly claiming you are a better human being based solely on what you believe. :bugeye:

 

[yaracuy]

Telling someone they are going to burn in hell is a judgment on a person's character. It's saying that they are an evil person based entirely on their non-belief of your fantasy. It's explicitly claiming you are a better human being based solely on what you believe. :bugeye:

Happen to be I don't threaten any body with hell , nor I think that I am better then any body. I believe that in the eyes of God we are all equal even you as an atheist or whatever

 

[yaracuy]

Nope, just a scientist.



Nope. He is far from rich; most bishops probably have a higher net worth than he does.



The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the Missouri flood relief effort via the Red Cross. Some other atheist charities who helped:

Partners in Non-Believers Giving Aid
Atheist Alliance International
Atheists Helping the Homeless
Atheists United
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Freedom From Religion Foundation
James Randi Educational Foundation
Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
New Humanist magazine
Rationalist Association
Rationalist International
Secular Student Alliance
Skeptics in the Pub
The British Humanist Association
The International Humanist and Ethical Union
The Reason Project
The Skeptic Magazine
The Skeptics Society



Why would he do that? Are they too skinny?

??????????????????????????????????

How do you know that he have sent thousands of dollars ? are blabbering or you are part of his team ?
Wow you seams to be an ordain atheist ? Is you title a bishop among atheists ?