The dark age is coming back

[VON_CAPO]

The theocratic State. This is happening in America right now! :down:

Superstition in the american population is rampant. :nope:

Check this out: ---> http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/51635/

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/9082/imaginaryfriendip2.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[Ducimus]

At work right now, can't exactly watch the video.

Religion has been on an upswing here for awhile now. I don't quite understand why. Im theorizing that religious revivalism comes and goes. Problem is it takes awhile for it to go. Generally speaking i find chrisitanity in the US, as a whole, the most hipocritical "organization" known to man; and i resist their efforts and intrusions into my life whenver i can. Theres alot of freaks out there. Again, i dont understand the ferver.

Some of these people make very large assumptions. LIke, "i thought such and such was a christian (insert noun here)". Just down the way where i live we had a "Christian family" move in. OHHHHH.. their christian........ The fact that they have to distinquish / seperate themselves by their beliefs is disturbing. Its tantamout.. no its worse then hyphinated Americans. Far worse.

Whats shady is how they effect the system and policy change within our country. Many people i think, want the division between church and state removed. The church takes in millions (if not billions) of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they effect our goverment via their congregations who vote. Backdoor government i think. Church isnt supposed to get involved yet i've heard in some ares in one of the bush elections that the local religious chapters were advocating that people should , "vote for morals".

My fear is sometime in the next decade, we wont be that much different then Iran, the only difference being, our religous organaiztions wont have an offical tie to goverment like iran does, but the tie will be just as strong and prevaliant, and the president as much as a puppet to the pulpit.

[August]

My fear is sometime in the next decade, we wont be that much different then Iran, the only difference being, our religous organaiztions wont have an offical tie to goverment like iran does, but the tie will be just as strong and prevaliant, and the president as much as a puppet to the pulpit.

The country has been far more religious from the beginning of the 20th century all the way back to the Continental Congress than any time since, yet that never happened so I think your fears are completely groundless.

[TteFAboB]

There was an interesting poll some months ago, you need to Google for it, stating that just as many Americans believed in God as Iranians.

The difference was: Americans feared God and thought to be on his bad boy list while Iranians believed God to be on their side and on his approval list.

[kiwi_2005]

I already live in the darkages:roll: When i voluntared here to track bugs for subsim, about 6months ago Mr Stevens PM me asking to text him when a problem pops up. Ahh okay but i dont own a cell phone :oops: Never have and probably never will. Im a 56ker with landline phone only man, im rolling in it! :rotfl: :roll:

Hey but i have sky! :p

[VON_CAPO]

Restore the "Pledge of Allegiance"


from ---> http://www.restorethepledge.com/

"""
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Above is the version of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America first approved by the Congress in 1942.
It evokes feelings of patriotism and unity, and brings together the vastly different cultures, ethnicities, languages and backgrounds that form the common experience called America.

It reaffirms our commitment to the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution, and reflects the foundation of that amazing document: that diversity is a blessing which only strengthens our nation.
This is especially true concerning religion, which the Framers recognized as uniquely divisive, causing them to set forth that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

We have done well since those first ten words of the Bill of Rights (i.e., the "Establishment Clause") were written in 1789, and generally held true to that principle.
Yet, in 1954 - fueled by the Cold War and blinded by McCarthyism - Congress violated its oath.

After sixty-two secular years, the Pledge - first introduced by a private magazine in 1892 - was changed.
Our elected officials felt it necessary to inject religion into the Pledge, and "under God" was interlarded into that promise which had previously embraced all Americans.

Currently there is a legal drive to remove those words.
"God" in the Pledge has caused the divisiveness, discrimination and exclusion that the Framers specifically sought to prevent.
Yes, the majority of Americans believe in God, and they nearly unanimously find no objection in the Pledge's current rendition.

But that is precisely why we have a Bill of Rights - to prevent tyranny by the majority, and to protect the rights of minorities.
Our Constitution forbids government from endorsing religious views, and those who choose not to believe in a deity should never be made to feel like "outsiders," as is now the case.

The words are "liberty and justice for all."
The Pledge should be a unifying experience for every citizen.

Placing a religious ideal into its midst is not right, and serves no purpose except to alter a purely patriotic tradition into one that satisfies the religious bent of the majority.
That is exactly what the First Amendment was written to preclude. """

[Sea Demon]

Currently there is a legal drive to remove those words.
"God" in the Pledge has caused the divisiveness, discrimination and exclusion that the Framers specifically sought to prevent.
Yes, the majority of Americans believe in God, and they nearly unanimously find no objection in the Pledge's current rendition.

But that is precisely why we have a Bill of Rights - to prevent tyranny by the majority, and to protect the rights of minorities.
Our Constitution forbids government from endorsing religious views, and those who choose not to believe in a deity should never be made to feel like "outsiders," as is now the case.



Since I've been alive, "God" in the pledge has never been an issue until recently. Those of you who lived in the 70's and 80's know what I'm talking about. It has not prevented any civil discourse or caused any divisiveness whatsoever. The only difference now is that we have a very vocal minority of rabble rousers causing it to be an issue with their anti-"everything" agenda. These people can't let people be happy and choose to live as they see fit. They can't allow people in a city or town choose what they want to display. And now this minority wants to tell people how they should say the Pledge of Allegiance.

I personally don't care if they say..."God is now officially out of the pledge". I will still say "God" in it. And that's how my kids will learn it. And many Americans feel the same way. Also, "Merry Christmas" was never a problem until these agenda driven leftitsts began their quest to shape American society to their own distorted liking. A society which is antithetical to what most people want. Everything was fine until the whiners came out and started their anti-"everything" quests. You don't want a tyranny of the majority. That's fine. But we should not have a tyranny of the minority either.

[August]

Two words. So what?

Congress has begun every session since George Washingtons time with a prayer.

"In God we trust" adorns our money.

US Presidents swear to uphold and defend the constitution "so help me God" when they take the oath of office.

Christmas is a national holiday.

In the US Senate Chamber, over east doorway are written the words "Annuit coeptis" (God has favored our undertakings), over south entrance: "In God we trust". In the Prayer room (yes there is such a room in the Capitol building) "Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust.", in the Congressional complexes corridors: "America! God shed his grace on Thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea!"

The word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions.

Given all that i hardly see where two words added to the Pledge of Allegience over 50 years ago indicate some kind of heinous shift to religious tolitarianism.

[Sea Demon]

Well said August. *loud applause* We weren't a theocracy back then...and we aren't heading for one now. My point is that it's the lefty-secularist who disturbed the peace here with all the whining. It is the people who complain about "God" in the pledge and such who are creating all the divisiveness and anger. Instead of respecting the people around them, they only seek to cause angst and discord to try and force everyone to bend to their own minority views. They want a society that is at odds with America itself, and at odds with how America historically has been defined. So we hear the hysterical and immature "Theocracy" stuff being thrown around.

[Onkel Neal]

I agree with August and Sea Demon. Religous people in the US, by and large, are normal people. With the demise of the NPT, rise of Islamic terrorism, genocide in Africa, I hardly think the Methodists are a clear and present danger.

[TteFAboB]

So this is about Newdow? I didn't recognized his voice. This is the guy who said he was raped by the mother of his daughter then went on and pledged in the name of his daughter, saying she was uncomfortable with the oath at school untill she and her mother came to public to state that they were Christians, had no problem with the oath and wanted to maintain it? In other words, a liar?

Google links:

Funny one here. Since Obi-Wan is mentioned: who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? http://www.opinionet.com/article.php?id=398 (http://www.opinionet.com/article.php?id=398)

More serious one here. www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28160 (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28160)

And this one is full of quotes from American politicians displaying all their totalitarian, theocratic and tyrant views: http://michaelnewdow.com/ (http://michaelnewdow.com/)

Check out this one VON_CAPO, seems like America is a theocracy since 1974, we're three decades late here: "Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first - the most basic - expression of Americanism. Thus the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be." Gerald Ford - December 5, 1974.

Anyway, finally had the time to watch the video. He equated Islam with Christendom. Good one. When equating the unequal, the worst is benefitted. In this case, Christianity is thrown to the pile of religoiusly motivated terrorism and Islam is spared from being specified, if any Muslim commits an act of terror, he's only a generic religiously motivated fanatic. Jihad has nothing to do with it. How many Christian terror attacks do we have on a daily basis again? And since 9/11?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

I wonder, since the Vatican has been a theocracy from birth, why aren't they impaling the atheists over there? Could it be that the principles of the Catholic Church are superior to the intolerant men and thus outlived their reign? Where is it safer for an atheist to live: the Vatican or Kabul?

Nothing can be more false. I don't know who's been been following Abdul Rahman's case, but when you reject Islam in the Muslim World you are sentenced to death. Apparently there isn't any other theocracy in the world as benevolent and tolerant as the USA, unless Newdow has been recently sentenced to death and had to seek asylum in Italy and I missed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_(convert)

[Neutrino 123]

As an atheist, I certainly don't think the U.S. is turning into a theocracy. I do believe that religious groups are becoming more vocal, but this is matched by more vocal atheist groups. There are some things many atheists whine about that are really not important, like the "merry Christmas" things. What the hell is their problem? Keep in mind that while people in religious groups can be associated with their religious, the only way that atheists are associated with is lack of something, so atheists themselves are quite varied.

Others things mentioned such as the pledge are not too critical either. I don't see where it is "required" to say the full pledge. Cannot an atheist can simply pledge alliegance to the country during a pledge, instead of our country under god?

Some things are worrying, however, such as the increased "creation science" in school curriculums, which have no basis in actual science, and are quite, shall we say, misrepresentative of many science aspects.

Also a legitimate grievance mentioned in the movie was the fact that in some states, atheists can't hold public office or testify in court (I think these were the things, though I was eating when watching, so I might have misread something). Isn't this unconstitutional? What happened to "no taxation without representation"? Of course, this isn't to say atheists would actually be elected to anything beyond the local level, at least not anytime soon.

The court testimony ban strikes me as "red flag", however. Even in the most religious of states, there are a fair number of atheists. It is extremely likely that many of these have been called to court over the years. Have their testimonies really been rejected, or is this another archaeic, non-enforced law?

Finally, a few other comments:
Why must people continually refer to the founding fathers and their intent when dealing with many things such as religion? There are often many arguements and quotes to both sides, but they don't add up to anything. It is the constitution itself that actually matters. Unfortunately, the constitution is often unclear, and the supreme court uses this alot, which I would think is somewhat beyond what they should be. Unclear things should be really clarified by wording amendments, unless we "like" playing the interpretation game, which seems retarded.

I noted in the video that the main referances to violant religion were to Islam, which is satisfactory as it produces the most religious violance by a great margin.

Finally, I would like to reaffirm that while many atheists are stinking hippies, many are also regular people! Please focus critisism on the damn hippies. They are actually alot worse then you think! You imagine the horror of solstice celebrations, or mindlessly repetitive nature camps. I have seen these! But you do not acknowledge your own worst enemy, yourselves! By being anti-atheist, you force atheists to combine together, preventing other good atheists from properly dealing with the hippies from within!
Okay, sorry for that paragraph. I accidently started the Ur-Quan theme, so I had to write something relevant...:ping:

[Safe-Keeper]

Richard Dawkins eat you all for breakfast (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4659873880136113631&q=richard+dawkins).

Since I've been alive, "God" in the pledge has never been an issue until recently.Which does not make it more right. Physical punishment, global warming and pollution are other issues ignored for the longest time and then suddenly surfacing.

Just that something has been widely accepted for a long time does not justify it.

The only difference now is that we have a very vocal minority of rabble rousers causing it to be an issue with their anti-"everything" agenda. These people can't let people be happy and choose to live as they see fit. They can't allow people in a city or town choose what they want to display. And now this minority wants to tell people how they should say the Pledge of Allegiance.http://winace.andkon.com/pics/ad_hominem.jpg
http://winace.andkon.com/pics/poison_well.jpg*

Fallacies are cute:oops:.

Also, "Merry Christmas" was never a problem until these agenda driven leftitsts began their quest to shape American society to their own distorted liking.
"Distorted"? I thought America was supposed to be secular from the beginning.

And, of course, America's a multi-ethnic country. When government institutions use the term "Merry Christmas", it shows that they favour Christians, in stark contrast of what they're supposed to do.

There's this document called the "US Constitution". Read it some day.

Congress has begun every session since George Washingtons time with a prayer.

"In God we trust" adorns our money.

US Presidents swear to uphold and defend the constitution "so help me God" when they take the oath of office.

Christmas is a national holiday.

In the US Senate Chamber, over east doorway are written the words "Annuit coeptis" (God has favored our undertakings), over south entrance: "In God we trust". In the Prayer room (yes there is such a room in the Capitol building) "Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust.", in the Congressional complexes corridors: "America! God shed his grace on Thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea!"

The word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions.Two wrongs don't make a right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right). Or six, for that matter. Or, come to think of it, since we're talking about US government religious acts, a billion wrongs don't make a right.

Another fallacy.

Oh, almost forgot: Appeal to Common Practice (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html), Popularity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html), and Tradition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html)! Silly me.

Anyway, finally had the time to watch the video. He equated Islam with Christendom. Good one.Indeed:up:. Two nearly identical religions, when it comes to scripture, history, and violence all. The only difference is that when Muslims do something, it sparks tonnes of Islamophobia and mosque leaders are forced to publicly distance themselves from the act - but when Christians do something wrong, the fact that they're Christians is at best only mentioned, at worst ignored.

How many Church leaders publicly stood up to distance their Church from Timothy McVeigh or Paul Hill's acts of terrorism? None that I ever heard of. How many were even asked to? I'm not aware of any.

[...]if any Muslim commits an act of terror, he's only a generic religiously motivated fanatic. Jihad has nothing to do with it.You make it sounds as if that's unique to Islamic terrorism.

How many Christian terror attacks do we have on a daily basis again? And since 9/11?That the Christian media in the USA is reporting? Very few.

In reality? Plenty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism) (<-- clickie!). Look into the militant groups in Africa. Look into the militant groups in India. Look into the abortion clinic bombings. The courthouse bombing in Oklahoma.

And, of course, while not all examples of terrorism, Bush's many policies during his adventure in the White House ought to be mentioned as well:
Torture,
white phosphorous over Fallujah,
starting a war based on lies,
and attacking homosexuality.
And more.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpgCheck the site out and... Well, it's no worse than the other hate sites I've been to all over the Web. At least the Web Design's better than God Hates Fags (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/www.godhatesfags.com)'.

Finally, I would like to reaffirm that while many atheists are stinking hippies, many are also regular people!I don't even get into discussions on how atheists are. Maybe it's because I'm from the "Atheist Bloc" of Scandinavia - in Norway only 19% believe in an after-life - but it seems wrong to me either way. It's like asking what blondes or left-handed people are like.

Re' movie: Bah, it's still illegal for stores in Norway to be open on Sundays. Can you believe it?
Fantastic film.

So this is about Newdow? I didn't recognized his voice. This is the guy who said he was raped by the mother of his daughter then went on and pledged in the name of his daughter, saying she was uncomfortable with the oath at school untill she and her mother came to public to state that they were Christians, had no problem with the oath and wanted to maintain it? In other words, a liar?

And this one is full of quotes from American politicians displaying all their totalitarian, theocratic and tyrant views: http://michaelnewdow.com/ (http://michaelnewdow.com/)More poisoning of the well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well). Cute.

"Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first - the most basic - expression of Americanism. Thus the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be." Gerald Ford - December 5, 1974.Nonsense. America was founded as an Atheist State. "Without God there would be no American form of government"? The Christians invented the Republic? That, friend, is bull-droppings.

*Pictures courtesy of the late WinAce (http://winace.andkon.com/pics/).

[TteFAboB]

Anyway, finally had the time to watch the video. He equated Islam with Christendom. Good one. Indeed:up:. Two nearly identical religions, when it comes to scripture, history, and violence all. The only difference is that when Muslims do something, it sparks tonnes of Islamophobia and mosque leaders are forced to publicly distance themselves from the act - but when Christians do something wrong, the fact that they're Christians is at best only mentioned, at worst ignored.

How many Church leaders publicly stood up to distance their Church from Timothy McVeigh or Paul Hill's acts of terrorism? None that I ever heard of. How many were even asked to? I'm not aware of any.

Christianity and Islam are not two nearly identical religons, that's a no on three accounts:

1. Scripture: The Christian Bible is a historical narrative constructed by collecting, debating and approving or rejecting scriptures. This slow process delayed the creation of the Church's doctrine. The Koran is the direct word of God dictated through Muhammad all at once, thus Islamic moral only took a short amount of time to form and may never be touched again as that would be violating the word of God. Islam intends to supercede Christianity so you couldn't have thought of a better insult to Islam than reject Sharia as the Islamic innovation by saying that it is nearly identical to the doctrine of the Church or the teachings of Jesus Christ.

2. History: Only by closing our eyes and ignoring reality can we pretend that there is no historical difference. The difference in scriptures themselves ought to produce different historical outcomes. Under Christianity Europe advanced. Under Islam the Greater Middle East stagnated and in some cases regressed. As the world created by Allah was perfect at the time of Muhammad's revelation, anything that distanced the world from that point would distance Muslims from the will of Allah.

http://people.freenet.de/Skybird/HistoryOfIslam_1_Forword.doc
http://people.freenet.de/Skybird/HistoryOfIslam_2_IslamQuranHadith.doc

3. Violence: Extremely unequal, here you are being outright dishonest. Comparing couldn't be more simple: while there is a separation of Church and state in every European Country in the Middle East you have both theocracies and secular governments among many Mullahs sentencing apostates to death and unwanted critics too. You always have to look back into the past to denounce the violence of the Church, however, the violence of Islam is present in our time. The view of the Church today is to condemn the violence of the past, the view of ME Imams today is that the violence is completely within Islamic moral if conducted through Jihad, another particularity of Islam. So the point is: when a Christian commits an act of violence he is violating the Church's doctrine, God's will or Jesus teachings. Very few will justify his action. Now to a violent Muslim it's the reverse, his family might even get awarded or rewarded though the greatest reward is joining the afterlife after fulfilling Allah's wish.

I believe I have indirectly answered the second question at least in part. I don't have the slightest idea of how many Church leaders publicy stood up against the two or how many were asked to, but if you are so aware of logical fallacies then you have just let one slip through: argumentum ad ignorantiam (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/). A deep Google research should give us the required information to comment upon it without falling for this fallacy, unfortunately I have no desire to do so. I deem myself satisfied with the contrary example of not distancing, but closing together, supporting and approving terrorist actions by Muslim Imams which only a superficial Google search will suffice since all the links will be recent, fresh out of their mouths.

Anyway, let's carry on and to your benefit assume both religions are exactly the same, then it becomes a matter of body-counting and adding the numbers.



[...]if any Muslim commits an act of terror, he's only a generic religiously motivated fanatic. Jihad has nothing to do with it.
But when a Christian committs an act of terrorism, such as when Timothy McVeigh blew up the courthouse in Oklahoma, all the media outlets call it "Christian terrorism". Right:roll:

I have no idea, all the media is a very broad category. Some probably do. But since we're playing your game now and equating everything, do they say it is a Crusade against the target? So in the case of Muslims, do they call it a Jihad? I don't know about all of them. Some don't.



How many Christian terror attacks do we have on a daily basis again? And since 9/11?
That the Christian media in the USA is reporting? Very few.

In reality? Plenty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism) (<-- clickie!). Look into the militant groups in Africa. Look into the militant groups in India. Look into the abortion clinic bombings. The courthouse bombing in Oklahoma.


Christian media? Can you be more specific or do you refer to the entire American media as Christian? Who's reporting them then? And what happens if I find all these cases reported on American media outlets through a Google search?

Ok I've got your link, let's add the numbers.

Abortion clinic attacks since 1977, source National Abortion Federation: 2673 plus one from Australia (2674).
I have excluded trespassings for the time being since I wouldn't consider it "bombing" (though everything else is included).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

India: 44 -> 2718
Centennial Park: 1 -> 2719
North Dakota: 2 -> 2721
Ireland: over 3000 -> 5721

I can't find numbers for Africa, if you have links I'm grateful.

Alright, let's subtract Ireland's 3000 with the 9/11 attacks which also killed over 3000 people, back to 2721 then.

Remember the number of Islamic attacks only since 9/11 (not all the way back to 1977):
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

If you look here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#attacks, you'll see that there is at least one death on each attack, when not much more. Therefore, simply by pretending tha each Islamic attack killed only one victim, we still have more than twice the number of deaths from Christian terror attacks. Now the real number of deaths is much higher since many attacks have more, in some cases far more, than just one victim.

For equal religions, they are very unequal on the whole violence part.

And, of course, while not all examples of terrorism, Bush's many policies during his adventure in the White House ought to be mentioned as well:
Torture,
white phosphorous over Fallujah,
starting a war based on lies,
and attacking homosexuality.
And more.

Let's make a deal, I ignore Bush's not all examples of terrorism during his adventure in the White House and you ignore Saddam's and Turkish Armenian/Kurd genocides. I ignore Bush's torture and you ignore Saddam's torture. I ignore white phosphorous over Fallujah and you ignore Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. I ignore a war based on lies and you ignore the UN mandate and Saddam's violation of such. I ignore Bush's attack on homossexuality and you ignore that homossexuality is repress all over the Muslim World, practically non-existence.

And more.

EIDT: It appears you have edited your post. Responding to what changed: "Poisoning the Well" - I can delete my entire comment on his person if you wish as it doesn't affect my main argument by an inch. "Nonsense" - talk to the man, that's not my opinion but it shows that Christian politicians are nothing new. "You make it sounds as if that's unique to Islamic terrorism" - it isn't, if I make it sound like that then I need to improve my communication skills, I wanted to say that when Jihad is forgotten then the terror attacks look like independent actions, just like the McVeigh case. It sure is interesting that the US with all these politicians is still a better place for an atheist to live than Iran.

[VON_CAPO]

Religious american society's point of view about atheists: ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5748/godwantsge2.gif (http://imageshack.us) http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4719/fanclubor8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[VON_CAPO]

Some of you consider that religion is not a big deal. That atheists are over reacting.

Are you sure?
Let me show you another documental about fanatism and its political ties with the goverment, with a special emphasis in America:

""" Root of all evil """ is a television documentary, written and presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that the world would be better off without religion.
The documentary was first broadcasted in January 2006, in the form of two 45 minute episodes on Channel 4 in the UK.

Part 1: ---> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4659873880136113631&q=Root+of+all+Evil&hl=en

Part 2: ---> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2439999165547892433&q=Root+of+all+Evil&hl=en

Enjoy!!!

[VON_CAPO]

Richard Dawkins eat you all for breakfast (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4659873880136113631&q=richard+dawkins).

Sorry, I did not notice your link!!! :up::up::up::up::up:

[Safe-Keeper]

;)
It's a good programme, though.

There's one thing to learn from mythology, though: It's far better to have an open outlook on death (as many religious people do) than to hide it and declare it a taboo (as many atheists do). Followers of mythology may be wrong in my eyes as to what happens when you die, but at least they discuss it. Death and dealing with it is such a taboo to atheists that it's scary.

[Ishmael]

Everyone needs to believe in something.

I believe I'll have another beer.

[ASWnut101]

I think Sea Demon and August know where I stand on this....

I belive Ishamel has good belifes.

[VON_CAPO]

There's one thing to learn from mythology, though:It's far better to have an open outlook on death (as many religious people do) than to hide it and declare it a taboo (as many atheists do). Followers of mythology may be wrong in my eyes as to what happens when you die, but at least they discuss it. Death and dealing with it is such a taboo to atheists that it's scary. :o:o:o:o:o

Followers of mythology and superstition are who proclaim "eternal life" and "judgment day" (something like their god will come to kill everyone, and only the chosen ones will survive). :roll:

Also they have a folklore of: souls, phantoms, zombies, halloween, 666, vampires, etc.

Well, you know, this people believes in supernatural stuff. Their behavior is driven by fear.

On the opposite side you have atheists, and they believe that death is a natural cycle. It is not taboo at all

[Spoon 11th]

Death and dealing with it is such a taboo to atheists that it's scary.

I disagree. Many atheists, me included, support euthanasia.

[The Avon Lady]

God Bless America
Words and music by Irving Berlin, 1939

"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer. "

God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

[August]

[/URL]How many Church leaders publicly stood up to distance their Church from Timothy McVeigh or Paul Hill's acts of terrorism? None that I ever heard of. How many were even asked to? I'm not aware of any.

That's because you didn't bother to look.

First off McVeighs reasons for his actions had to do with his belief in government tyranny, not religion, so including him in your argument is a red herring.

Secondly, it took all of 60 seconds to find these links from the pro-life movement condemning the actions of Paul Hill.

http://www.mttu.com/Wetzel%20-%20The%20Puppet%20Master%202.htm (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4659873880136113631&q=richard+dawkins)
[url]http://www.streetpreachersfellowship.com/hill.asp
http://www.covenantnews.com/north030905.htm
http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/press/press/paul_hill_9_2_03.htm
http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/archive/200309/NAT20030904b.html

[August]

America the Beautiful

Oh beautiful, for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America! God shed his grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea.

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassion'd stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness.

America! America!
God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.

O beautiful for heroes prov'd
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life.

America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev'ry gain divine.

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears.

America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea.

[Gizzmoe]

FYI, I´ve cleaned up the thread a little bit, only the posts that came after the complaint.

[VON_CAPO]

FYI, I´ve cleaned up the thread a little bit, only the posts that came after the complaint.
Thank you Gizzmoe. :rock:

[joea]

VOON_CAPO so what do YOU want? Respect for atheists? Freedom for their position, and not having religion or spirituality or superstition forced on them? (Take your pick) Great, but it seems you want religion to be eliminated as much as some religious people want atheism to be eliminated. I don't think that is very fair or openminded.

[Safe-Keeper]

On the opposite side you have atheists, and they believe that death is a natural cycle. It is not taboo at allIt is a taboo, like psychiatry, and a very strict one. It's not talked about in school, you don't learn about it, and when death comes around, you know nearly nothing about it. Sure, it frequents movies, but Hell, death in reality, as opposed to on the movie screen, is a taboo.

A friend of mine's mother died in a mudslide a year ago, and I, and her other friends had zero clue as to how to approach her. Countless stories I've read from grieving people mostly tell the same story: Neighbours and friends who turn away from you to "leave you alone" because they don't know better; Teachers who expect you to be fine two days after the death; people who think that the grief from the death of a loved one lasts for a week, as opposed to a life-time... I could go on and on.

Death is a taboo. Just like sex and masterbation was before we got sexual education (remember the days of "masterbation is a Sin and makes you blind"?. Just like psychiatry and mental illness is a taboo (try to be open about your mental illness and I promise you you'll have a lot of ignorants back away from you). Just like AIDS used to be a taboo no one learned about or knew about.

I know how to be there for friends who lose loved ones now (simple, really, just be there for them, don't change the subject when they bring the death up, and don't go "I know how you feel"), but it was no fun back then when I had no clue and had to learn the hard way:cry:.

Well, you know, this people believes in supernatural stuff. Their behavior is driven by fear.I pointed out in my post, I believe, that I don't agree with the Christians' view on what happens when you die (you could take a hint from me calling it a "mythology"). But my point still stands about them dealing with grief and mourning better than atheists, because they're more open about it and talk about it, instead of declaring it off-limits.

I disagree. Many atheists, me included, support euthanasia.You misunderstood what I meant.

America the Beautiful & God Bless AmericaOK, so America the Beautiful has the word "God" in it. Seems like just another addition to your list to me. Your point?

[Iceman]

Some things are worrying, however, such as the increased "creation science" in school curriculums, which have no basis in actual science, and are quite, shall we say, misrepresentative of many science aspects.



quantum physics....one thing science keeps learning time and time again is they don't know squat....what they think is true is not what they thought not...is...introducing creationisim into school...yes....give kids all the info they can get and let them make they're decision...to teach children that science is the only solution to all things is foolish and proven wrong by science itself.

[Wim Libaers]

Some things are worrying, however, such as the increased "creation science" in school curriculums, which have no basis in actual science, and are quite, shall we say, misrepresentative of many science aspects.



quantum physics....one thing science keeps learning time and time again is they don't know squat....what they think is true is not what they thought not...is...introducing creationisim into school...yes....give kids all the info they can get and let them make they're decision...to teach children that science is the only solution to all things is foolish and proven wrong by science itself.

So do we also make it mandatory to teach about the flying spaghetti monster?
http://www.venganza.org/ :p

Seriously, science has very strong claims to correctness. The fact that various scientific theories have been proven wrong (or at least incomplete), and that many other theories will also require changes in the future doesn't indicate that science is wrong. In fact, the opposite is true: every theory that has to be changed is a victory for science, because such changes happen because new discoveries are made that improve our knowledge about how things work, and get rid of old misconceptions. Science adapts to new findings, asks that theories have supporting evidence, and rejects what can be disproven. So it's very different from a mere belief. Science cannot claim complete knowledge and correctness, but it does strive towards it, adapting to new evidence. And it works pretty well, if you consider its achievements.

But if schools teach science not as this process of refinement, but merely as a disconnected set of facts that the student has to learn, those students could be forgiven for not noticing a difference.

Intelligent Design advocates something that you could call "the God of the gaps". Basically, whenever there is a gap in our understanding of the world, that means God must have been involved. So, before people understood electricity, it was explained as God being angry and destroying something, throwing a hammer, etc...

As science progressed, the number of gaps decreased, and with it the importance of this particular type of God. ID is just a bunch of people who feel the need to attack some domain of science to make people believe there are more gaps in our knowledge.

Of course, you are right that science is not the answer for everything. It offers knowledge, but people also need motivations for their actions, and such motivations are rather subjective.

[VON_CAPO]

So do we also make it mandatory to teach about the flying spaghetti monster?
http://www.venganza.org/ :p :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Let's add to this, that evangelicals are defying science claiming that the world is 10.000 years old instead of 4.500.000.000. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Because is written in their sacred book. :roll::roll::roll:

[VON_CAPO]

It is extremly remarkable, people who is free thinker come usually from Europe. :hmm::hmm::hmm:

(it is just an idea, an opinion) :88)

[Hylander_1314]

When the economy is bad, or war is prevelent, religion usually increases in numbers. If it makes more poeple feel more secure, then so be it.

Don't forget though, that a lot of people came to America for religous reasons. And most of those in the early days were extremists by todays standards. Be thankful we don't have to deal with things like what went on in Salem Mass. back in the 1600's.

[waste gate]

There is always this.


Adolf Hitler and Naziism are interpreted as an example of the varying forms of psychopathology that manifest and make clear the consequences of human rejection of the divine call to spiritual growth.


You know, I wasn't planning on getting into this but

It is extremly remarkable, people who is free thinker come usually from Europe. :hmm::hmm::hmm:



This statement was way over the top and brought me in. The implication is demeaning and grotesque in its arrogance.

[Spoon 11th]

google video: Turning muslim in texas.
Those people seemed happy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9184353144432289069

[Onkel Neal]

google video: Turning muslim in texas.
Those people seemed happy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9184353144432289069

Of course they're happy, they're in Texas :up:

I had to laugh to hear that Texas drawl coming from behind the veil. :p

[Spoon 11th]

I had to laugh to hear that Texas drawl coming from behind the veil. :p

Agreed. Allah akbar pronounced with american 'r' sounds pretty funny.

[Neutrino 123]

Some things are worrying, however, such as the increased "creation science" in school curriculums, which have no basis in actual science, and are quite, shall we say, misrepresentative of many science aspects.



quantum physics....one thing science keeps learning time and time again is they don't know squat....what they think is true is not what they thought not...is...introducing creationisim into school...yes....give kids all the info they can get and let them make they're decision...to teach children that science is the only solution to all things is foolish and proven wrong by science itself.
Quantum physics is a most excellent theory and can predict many things! The Standard Model (though unable to explain certain extreme phenomena) is one of the best and most accurate theories ever! Alot of the confusion about this is because quantum mechanics is often counterintuitive to our generally Newtonian life, and thus is very hard to interpret. It is of course, readily understood...from a mathematical point of view after two years prior background in college-level math and physics.

Science itself has a VAST body of knowledge that has proven again and again to be accurate. Sure, the is a HUGE amount of things that science does not know, or can't (yet) explain, but I hardly think that that is a strike against science.

Of course, theories sometimes change. As humans learn more, science generally improves, finding more and more accurate explanations for things. Indeed, a fundamental postulate of science is to never truly "believe" anything, but many things can certainly be loosely accepted as true unless some significant contradictory evidence arises.


It would certainly be nice to give children all the information we have, every false theory could lead to new and correct ideas. However, that is simply impossible for anyone to learn unless you have thousands of the best hard drives in your brain for memory storage. Science class needs to be restricted to things that are accepted by, well, science. Right now, there amount of evidence for evolution and a ~4.6 billion year old Earth is simply extreme. The amount of evidence for intelligent design and a young Earth is negligible.


For some laughs, look at this fundementalist Christan website (for kidz!):
http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/

The atheist part is the best (scroll down a bit). Now I have to go back to being bitter and grumpy... :ping:

[Gizzmoe]

The atheist part is the best (scroll down a bit).

Man, how ridiculous! :rotfl:

[Neutrino 123]

Gee Gizzmoe, you edited my text, but I was simultaneously editing out the white part as well...:sunny:

[The Avon Lady]

I have posted this before and I'll gladly post it again:

Think Again: Charlie Darwin's Angels (http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/917/), by Jonathan Rosenblum, Jerusalem Post, January 12, 2006

[VON_CAPO]

From ---> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31521-2005Jan23.html

Washingtonpost's Editorial

God and Darwin

Monday, January 24, 2005; Page A14

WITH THEIR SLICK Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a "theory" that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more sophisticated than the creationists of yore.

Rather than attempt to prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural process and must have been the work of a single creator.

They do no experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals. Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.

Perhaps partly as a result, a startling 55 percent of Americans -- and 67 percent of those who voted for President Bush -- do not, according to a recent CBS poll, believe in evolution at all.

"According to a recent Gallup poll, about a third of Americans believe that the Bible is literally true. "

""Discussion of religion in a history or philosophy class is legitimate and appropriate. To teach intelligent design as science in public schools is a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state.""

"" It also violates principles of common sense. In fact, the breadth and extent of the anti-evolutionary movement that has spread almost unnoticed across the country should force American politicians to think twice about how their public expressions of religious belief are beginning to affect education and science""

http://img283.imageshack.us/img283/7741/gkkebhhue9ph25tolf0.jpg (http://imageshack.us) http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7311/23z22xytjre1411xh269gx8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[VON_CAPO]

For some laughs, look at this fundementalist Christan website (for kidz!):
http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/

The atheist part is the best (scroll down a bit). Now I have to go back to being bitter and grumpy...
The atheist part is the best (scroll down a bit). Man, how ridiculous! This is what loving people teaches their childen :o:o:o
Do you notice the horns? :hmm:

http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/5111/omniuosax8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

EDIT: Additionally I found the following... :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/9144/incedibleac7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[The Avon Lady]

Do you notice the horns? :hmm:
They're a mutation. :p

Can you be honest enough to point out how unscientific and filled with emotional rhetoric the Washington Post editiorial is itself?

[Fish]

Some of you consider that religion is not a big deal. That atheists are over reacting.

Are you sure?
Let me show you another documental about fanatism and its political ties with the goverment, with a special emphasis in America:

""" Root of all evil """ is a television documentary, written and presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that the world would be better off without religion.
The documentary was first broadcasted in January 2006, in the form of two 45 minute episodes on Channel 4 in the UK.

Part 1: ---> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4659873880136113631&q=Root+of+all+Evil&hl=en

Part 2: ---> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2439999165547892433&q=Root+of+all+Evil&hl=en

Enjoy!!!

Thanks for the links, some parts are scary, from both side, muslim/christian.

[Fish]

Some things are worrying, however, such as the increased "creation science" in school curriculums, which have no basis in actual science, and are quite, shall we say, misrepresentative of many science aspects.



quantum physics....one thing science keeps learning time and time again is they don't know squat....what they think is true is not what they thought not...is...introducing creationisim into school...yes....give kids all the info they can get and let them make they're decision...to teach children that science is the only solution to all things is foolish and proven wrong by science itself.

So do we also make it mandatory to teach about the flying spaghetti monster?
http://www.venganza.org/ :p

Seriously, science has very strong claims to correctness. The fact that various scientific theories have been proven wrong (or at least incomplete), and that many other theories will also require changes in the future doesn't indicate that science is wrong. In fact, the opposite is true: every theory that has to be changed is a victory for science, because such changes happen because new discoveries are made that improve our knowledge about how things work, and get rid of old misconceptions. Science adapts to new findings, asks that theories have supporting evidence, and rejects what can be disproven. So it's very different from a mere belief. Science cannot claim complete knowledge and correctness, but it does strive towards it, adapting to new evidence. And it works pretty well, if you consider its achievements.

But if schools teach science not as this process of refinement, but merely as a disconnected set of facts that the student has to learn, those students could be forgiven for not noticing a difference.

Intelligent Design advocates something that you could call "the God of the gaps". Basically, whenever there is a gap in our understanding of the world, that means God must have been involved. So, before people understood electricity, it was explained as God being angry and destroying something, throwing a hammer, etc...

As science progressed, the number of gaps decreased, and with it the importance of this particular type of God. ID is just a bunch of people who feel the need to attack some domain of science to make people believe there are more gaps in our knowledge.

Of course, you are right that science is not the answer for everything. It offers knowledge, but people also need motivations for their actions, and such motivations are rather subjective.

Very well sayd.
If there was no science, we still would hunt with a stone and live in caves!

[joea]

This is what loving people teaches their childen :o:o:o
Do you notice the horns? :hmm:


No it isn't...could you answer my post?

VON_CAPO so what do YOU want? Respect for atheists? Freedom for their position, and not having religion or spirituality or superstition forced on them? (Take your pick) Great, but it seems you want religion to be eliminated as much as some religious people want atheism to be eliminated. I don't think that is very fair or openminded.

You seem to mock all religious people and put them in the same light that some religious people put atheists. :nope:

[Fish]

I have posted this before and I'll gladly post it again:

Think Again: Charlie Darwin's Angels (http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/917/), by Jonathan Rosenblum, Jerusalem Post, January 12, 2006

You are a creationist? :o

[VON_CAPO]

I have posted this before and I'll gladly post it again:

Think Again: Charlie Darwin's Angels (http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/917/), by Jonathan Rosenblum, Jerusalem Post, January 12, 2006
You are a creationist? :o
Of course, she is.

[VON_CAPO]

...could you answer my post?
Take again, a carefully look to post #1, measure its deep implications.
If that is not sufficient, you could take a tour into the post #16 , it has a lot of revelations about the topic.

[The Avon Lady]

I have posted this before and I'll gladly post it again:

Think Again: Charlie Darwin's Angels (http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/917/), by Jonathan Rosenblum, Jerusalem Post, January 12, 2006
You are a creationist? :o
Of course, she is.
Well, most probably. :hmm: I say that because there's room for Darwin's theory, or parts thereof, in Judaic commentaries on the Genesis. But the bottom line is it makes no difference to me in any way how G-d created the universe and its contents.

Now, if the initial "shock" of my opinion has worn off, would anyone care to address the article I linked to?

[VON_CAPO]

Now, if the initial "shock" of my opinion has worn off, would anyone care to address the article I linked to? I take this sentence as mine. :yep::yep::yep: Thanks.

[Ducimus]

All im going to add is that i like to view everything as sort of a system of checks and balances.

For every vocal religious nutjub trying to ram their religion down our throat, theres a "rabble rouser" trying to make sure he doesnt. For every zealous rightwing nutjub, theres an equally zealous liberal weenie. As long as one faction or another doesnt gain too much influence for very long, we should be ok. When one group or intrest gains too much influence for too long of a period of time, then we have a problem.

Im surpised someone brought the old "under god" in the pledge debate back. I think thats the leading claim alot of zealous christians have that America is an offical christian nation that should live by their beleifs. As i recall the whole "under god" thign was added to the pledge, by i think Truman? As i recall he was a devoute christian influced by his religious constituations. To paraphrase his reasoning i think was cold war bull****, that we weren't going to be like the "godless commies".

Problem with fighting something like that now, is because its been in our system for so long, people can't think of it any other way. People say "under god" even if they don't belive in it, simply because thats the way they were taught, and wouldnt change the pledge for anything, even if they're not a chrisitan nutjob. As a kid i never thought much of it but it did make me scowl a little, but thats because i was victim to real.. and i do mean, real, no exaggeration, chrisitan nutjob of a grandmother who tramatized me, and everyone who ever came in contact with her to christiantily. To this day, everyone in that side of the family HATES church because of this woman, myself included.

[Gizzmoe]

Now, if the initial "shock" of my opinion has worn off, would anyone care to address the article I linked to?

Although Wim´s post (#31) hasn´t addressed that particular article, it fits IMO: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=335392&postcount=31

[The Avon Lady]

Now, if the initial "shock" of my opinion has worn off, would anyone care to address the article I linked to?
Although Wim´s post (#31) hasn´t addressed that particular article, it fits IMO: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=335392&postcount=31
Let's analyze that:
So do we also make it mandatory to teach about the flying spaghetti monster?
http://www.venganza.org/
I can't speak for other religious minded people here but I have no problem with the theory of evolution being taught in the US public school system. I do, however, have a problem with evolution being taught - ironically - as the gospel truth. Furthermore, I don't believe there are a significant number of FSM believers in the US school system to qualify teaching the subject. If there were, I would not object to a comparative analysis of common and uncommon points being highlighted by teachers.

The world isn't full of FSM believers - thank G-d! However, there are several highly followed and respected (that's very relevant) religions whose understandings of the origins of everything partially or wholey contradict Darwin.

Simple question to all the aetheists: explain the big bang? How do you get something out of nothing?
Seriously, science has very strong claims to correctness.
That's very vague but no problem there in general.
The fact that various scientific theories have been proven wrong (or at least incomplete), and that many other theories will also require changes in the future doesn't indicate that science is wrong.
No but the inverse is true, too. This is a 2 way street.
In fact, the opposite is true: every theory that has to be changed is a victory for science, because such changes happen because new discoveries are made that improve our knowledge about how things work, and get rid of old misconceptions.
I agree that this is true of "science" but not of all "scientists". There is often a lot of subjectivity involved, whether the scientist is religious, non-religious, financially involved, etc.
Science adapts to new findings, asks that theories have supporting evidence, and rejects what can be disproven. So it's very different from a mere belief. Science cannot claim complete knowledge and correctness, but it does strive towards it, adapting to new evidence. And it works pretty well, if you consider its achievements.
I wouldn't argue with this.
But if schools teach science not as this process of refinement, but merely as a disconnected set of facts that the student has to learn, those students could be forgiven for not noticing a difference.
Sounds nice to me.
Intelligent Design advocates something that you could call "the God of the gaps". Basically, whenever there is a gap in our understanding of the world, that means God must have been involved.
If there is a god and it is understood that G-d is the creator, then this is true.
So, before people understood electricity, it was explained as God being angry and destroying something, throwing a hammer, etc...
And this has been disproven. In fact, do you know of any religious people who believe this today? I don't. But it's not relevant to creationism. In fact, it's similar to science in the way that it was an assumed theory, proven incorrect and accepted by all.
As science progressed, the number of gaps decreased, and with it the importance of this particular type of God.
Lost me there. What does this mean?
ID is just a bunch of people who feel the need to attack some domain of science to make people believe there are more gaps in our knowledge.
This itself is a childish attack.
Of course, you are right that science is not the answer for everything. It offers knowledge, but people also need motivations for their actions, and such motivations are rather subjective.
OK. So?

To sum it up, I don't see anything exciting in the above post. Maybe that's because I don't feel it applies to me. Maybe.

It still does not deal with the article I previously linked to. Waiting for a scientific response. :roll:

Here's another article. I'll post it in full because I can only browse it in a cached webpage copy:
Monkeys and atheists (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32796)
Posted: May 28, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Thomas Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog") is said to have come up with the most famous defense of the atheist belief that life was created by chance, not God. In a debate at Oxford, he is reported to have stated that if enough monkeys randomly pressed typewriter keys for a long enough time, sooner or later Psalm 23 would emerge.

Not all atheists use this argument, but it accurately represents the atheist belief that with enough time and enough solar systems, you'll get you, me and Bach's cello suites.

This belief has always struck me as implausible. The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism.

I fully acknowledge the great challenge to theism – the rampant and seemingly random unfairness built into human life. But no intellectually honest atheist should deny the great challenge to atheism – the existence of design and intelligence. The belief that Bach's music randomly evolved from a paramecium should strike anyone as so fantastic as to be absurd, even more absurd than the belief that a monkey could monkey Shakespeare. The finite number of years in the universe's existence and the finite number of planets would not come close to producing a few sentences, let alone Psalm 23 or a Shakespeare play.

But a just reported English University experiment has convinced me that the number of monkeys and the amount of time are irrelevant. Psalm 23, let alone Hamlet, would never be written. Why? Because the monkeys probably wouldn't do any typing.

According to news reports, instructors at Plymouth University put six Sulawesi crested macaque monkeys in a room with a computer and keyboards for four weeks. Though one of the monkeys frequently typed the letter "s", the other monkeys ignored the keyboard, preferring to play with one another and with the ropes and toys placed there. When they did pay attention to the keyboard, one smashed it with a stone and the others repeatedly urinated and defecated on it.

The instructors hastened to note the study was not scientific, given the short duration of time and the small number of monkeys, but some of us find this "study" to be a hilarious vindication of our view of the "enough monkeys for enough time" argument for random creation.

According to the science correspondent of Britain's Guardian newspaper, "assuming each monkey typed a steady 120 characters a minute (itself a preposterous assumption), mathematicians have calculated it would take 10 to the 813th power (10 followed by 813 zeros) monkeys about five years to knock out a decent version of Shakespeare's Sonnet 3"

To put 10 to the 813th power into perspective, remember that a billion is 10 to the ninth power.

There are many intellectually honest atheists, and there are many intellectually dishonest believers in God. Nevertheless, I believe that any objective person would have to conclude that the belief that everything came about by itself and that randomness is the creator is infinitely less intellectually sound than the belief in a Creator-Designer.

Sadly, many people come to doubt God's existence because so many intellectuals are atheists. But it was a major scientist, Professor Robert Jastrow, one of the greatest living astronomers, head of the Mount Wilson Observatory, formerly head of NASA's Goddard Space Center, and an agnostic, who best explained the atheism of many scientists.

In his book "God and the Astronomers," Jastrow tells of his surprise when so many fellow astronomers refused to accept the Big Bang hypothesis for the origins of the universe. In fact, Jastrow writes, many astronomers were actually unhappy about it. Why? Because the Big Bang implied a beginning to the universe – and a beginning implies a Creator, something many scientists passionately reject.

This led Jastrow to the sobering conclusion that many scientists have vested, non-scientific interests in some of their beliefs, especially the non-existence of God. For some psychological or emotional reasons, not intellectual ones, many scientists prefer to believe that given enough monkeys, one will type out a psalm.

But neither math nor science argues that all came about randomly, without a Creator. Only a keen desire to deny God explains such a belief, a belief that should be laid to rest beneath a large pile of monkey doo-doo at Plymouth University, England.

[Gizzmoe]

Simple question to all the aetheists: explain the big bang? How do you get something out of nothing?

"We" can´t explain that, neither can "your group". The answer to that cannot be "science can´t explain it, so there has to be a god".

[waste gate]

How is this for a way to sort out the issue. If you believe in a Divinity and God doesn’t exist, no harm, no foul. If you don’t believe in a Divinity, and God does exist, well then I guess we all know the answer to that, don’t we.

[The Avon Lady]

Simple question to all the aetheists: explain the big bang? How do you get something out of nothing?
"We" can´t explain that, neither can "your group". The answer to that cannot be "science can´t explain it, so there has to be a god".
No. The answer to that is that we (I speak only on behalf of Judaism in this post) are a people who have believed in G-d for good historical reasons (http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai$.asp) and we have no problem understanding the big-bang theory, which itself is - again ironically - a scientific postulation.

[Gizzmoe]

Now I´m confused. What´s your point? Why did you ask the atheists to explain the big bang when, as you say, your religion has no problem understanding the big-bang theory? Which btw doesn´t of course explain everything, especially not the "How do you get something out of nothing?" part.

who have believed in G-d for good historical reasons (http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai$.asp)
The "national revelation" thing is a good historical reason for you, I don´t believe a word of it. I won´t let an ancient book tell me what to think, eat, drink or how to behave.

[joea]

...could you answer my post?
Take again, a carefully look to post #1, measure its deep implications.
If that is not sufficient, you could take a tour into the post #16 , it has a lot of revelations about the topic.

Yes I know Dawkins, he is just as bad as the religious nuts, if you want to remove religious influence from government and politics I am with you. You just want to make fun of all religion and religious people than sorry I am not.

[The Noob]

I am atheist. I do not believe in you-know-who.

The whole religion stuff sounds quite unbelievable to me. It can not be explained scientifically, from what i think is science. Science is not begin obsessed to puzzle together loose events with part's that don't fit using weird theorys. Sorry, but thats what so-called documentarys on religion often do.

For me, religion (with "religion" i mean everything except Budism, wich is a bit weird on it's own) is a thing based on loose events in the ME and a "Hippie" named J3sus some people need to give their lives sense or can't live without since they where already born in a Religious family.

Oh yeah, before i forget it: Religion caused many stupid wars and is one of the reasons for the problems we have today. No religion=One important step thorwards a sane, better world. Paradise is not "up there", you have to get of ye a** and change the things "down here".

About safe-keeper's argument "It's nice have an open outlook on death". Well, for people who can't live with the trouth maybe. The moment i die i don't have to care about that anymore. It's over then. The big nothing, where all thinking and existing ends. Death.

I won't have to care about death if i'm dead. There is nothing after death, even if it would be nice, there isn't. Accepted that, moved on.

And i have a very happy life, except of the things wich cause me to rant (Like dumb politics and sh**ty people).

Avon Lady and August,

If G-d blesses anyone, he has to bless THE **** everyone, not only the Americans. *Gets angry damn quick*

Religious american society's point of view about atheists: ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU
Jaaaaa! Who said crazy rubbish again? Who made a "Racist" (Anti-Atheist) Remark? Who wants all atheist out of his country? (It's obivious) Yes, a bush again.

It is extremly remarkable, people who is free thinker come usually from Europe. :hmm::hmm::hmm:

I agree. You slowly start to understand my dislike for America. In every country, there are @$%&?!! and nice people. But in America there are more @$%&?!!******'s .

[Gizzmoe]

I agree. You slowly start to understand my dislike for America. In every country, there are @$%&?!! and nice people. But in America there are more @$%&?!!******'s .

*yawn* This is getting old.

[The Noob]

*Sign*

/makes note to self: STFU!

[waste gate]

You slowly start to understand my dislike for America. In every country, there are @$%&?!! and nice people. But in America there are more @$%&?!!******'s .

Because we disagree with you?

[Neutrino 123]

Though I'm not a biologist, I will address the anti-evolution editorial if no one else has by later today. However, I may not be able to cite some things directly due to my mixed google skills, so I would prefer a biologist to do it.

As for the big bang, or rather, the theory that the universe emerged from a singularity, it is probably true that some atheists have unscientific opposition to it just as religious people may have unscientific support for it. Sadly, personal beliefs (not always religious) often interfere with science.

However, in this case, there is no scientific evidance to really accept a "true" singularity, both in the early universe and for black holes. This is because the theories for such a situation require large gravitational forces on a quantum level, and no current theories exist for this situation. Theories of Everything are in the process of being developed, and they might shed more light on the matter.

Still, just because there is an (apparent) "moment of creation" does not imply a creator, because then what created the creator, and so on. It is simply another unknown that may be explained in the future.

This brings up another point. While religious people like to fill all holes in science with their god(s), this really isn't proper. If they also accept science, then they need to keep changing exactly where their god interferes. Why not just wait for science to try to explain things, and if science seems to indicate that something cannot be normally explained, only then assign it to god(s)? Basically, you can assign the universe to god, and simply leave everything else to science. You can even do this if the universe is found to be completely cyclical, apparently ever repeating and haveing always been repeating (though the current theories do not indicate this, of course). I'm sure any god(s) would no be limited in their omnipotent ways by the mere temporal dimension.

If you have a typewriter and randomly press keys, you will eventually get and work of literature. This is simple probability. I'm sure that you would believe that with enough typing, you could get a simple word like "and" eventually. One monkey could probably get that in a good day's work of truely random typing (unless you need the space before and after it, which would make it take longer I think). To get works of literature, the principle would be the same, it would just be vastly more unlikely. We might be talking time periods similar to the age of the universe here. It can be calculated precisely if a few simple things are known. On the matter of the formation of life, there was certainly alot of time for random fluxuations, but I believe recent studies have indicated that it is less probabilitic then originally thought. Organic compounds can slowly build up into greater complexity.


Finally, it is correct that creationism is an important topic for school, but it belongs in social science when learning about different cultures, because so many people believe it, not in science, because it is unscientific, regardless of the state of other scientific theories.

[joea]

*Sign*

/makes note to self: STFU!

No say what you think, but who are you to say religon is backward? How many people died in the name of state atheism? (IE. Communism)?

[Iceman]

Some things are worrying, however, such as the increased "creation science" in school curriculums, which have no basis in actual science, and are quite, shall we say, misrepresentative of many science aspects.



quantum physics....one thing science keeps learning time and time again is they don't know squat....what they think is true is not what they thought not...is...introducing creationisim into school...yes....give kids all the info they can get and let them make they're decision...to teach children that science is the only solution to all things is foolish and proven wrong by science itself.
Quantum physics is a most excellent theory and can predict many things! The Standard Model (though unable to explain certain extreme phenomena) is one of the best and most accurate theories ever! Alot of the confusion about this is because quantum mechanics is often counterintuitive to our generally Newtonian life, and thus is very hard to interpret. It is of course, readily understood...from a mathematical point of view after two years prior background in college-level math and physics.

Science itself has a VAST body of knowledge that has proven again and again to be accurate. Sure, the is a HUGE amount of things that science does not know, or can't (yet) explain, but I hardly think that that is a strike against science.

Of course, theories sometimes change. As humans learn more, science generally improves, finding more and more accurate explanations for things. Indeed, a fundamental postulate of science is to never truly "believe" anything, but many things can certainly be loosely accepted as true unless some significant contradictory evidence arises.


It would certainly be nice to give children all the information we have, every false theory could lead to new and correct ideas. However, that is simply impossible for anyone to learn unless you have thousands of the best hard drives in your brain for memory storage. Science class needs to be restricted to things that are accepted by, well, science. Right now, there amount of evidence for evolution and a ~4.6 billion year old Earth is simply extreme. The amount of evidence for intelligent design and a young Earth is negligible.


For some laughs, look at this fundementalist Christan website (for kidz!):
http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/

The atheist part is the best (scroll down a bit). Now I have to go back to being bitter and grumpy... :ping:

Quantum Physics in a nutshell says that "Any Thing" is possible...this is true.This has been taught by Christianity for over 2000 years now with one difference..."I can do ALL things through Christ which strengtheneth me".We believe the "Power" comes from and originates from God to do anything according to the will of God.

To laugh at the Dead Sea Scrolls is a mistake by dismissing them in the belief that they must be wrong by your only evidence being that "Christians" believe the Earth has only been around for 10,000 yrs.

Consider Einstein and the theory of realativity and the understanding of time...the closer one comes to the speed of light time begins to slow yet "Man" has determined that it can never be done that is travel at the speed of light...if this theory is true and God claiming to be "Light" itself living for Him would mean "Time" does not exsist and therefore one does not age hence Eternity...

so if God created the heavens and all the Earth in seven days what is seven days to God?....a year a thousand yrs,,,a million a billion?...you tell me what is time to a being where time really has no bearing on anything.

Point I simply try to make is man...has a really small mind...and to dismiss anything is ignorant...

Some other things taught by Christianity..."Be carefull for No-Thing but be carefull for Every-Thing"

E=MC2 = And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

one more diddy about time....it will END eyes will be opened then.

Revelation 10

[1] And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:
[2] And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth,
[3] And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.
[4] And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.
[5] And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
[6] And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
[7] But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
[8] And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.
[9] And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
[10] And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
[11] And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

I do not personally care whether you or anyone on this forum beieves in the Bible or God that is your choice but to put all your eggs in the basket of science make me respect the gambler in you.

[Wim Libaers]

I can't speak for other religious minded people here but I have no problem with the theory of evolution being taught in the US public school system. I do, however, have a problem with evolution being taught - ironically - as the gospel truth. Furthermore, I don't believe there are a significant number of FSM believers in the US school system to qualify teaching the subject. If there were, I would not object to a comparative analysis of common and uncommon points being highlighted by teachers.

The world isn't full of FSM believers - thank G-d! However, there are several highly followed and respected (that's very relevant) religions whose understandings of the origins of everything partially or wholey contradict Darwin.
The FSM reference was intended as an explanation with an exaggerated example. The FSM concept was deliberately developed as something silly, yet the scientific evidence in favour of a creation of the universe by the FSM and the creation of the universe by one of the more common gods is equally strong (i.e. nonexistent). Of course, the number of FSM believers is much smaller than the number of believers from more traditional religions, but that doesn't mean much. After all, when those traditional religions started, they were also small, and often ridiculed and/or persecuted.

Besides, amount of supporters doesn't determine correctness.

Also, for the correctness of a scientific theory it doesn't really matter that many people believe things that contradict it, what matters is if those people can provide evidence that observable reality contradicts the theory.

Simple question to all the aetheists: explain the big bang? How do you get something out of nothing?
Open question. This is just another example of the "God of the gaps": there is something we don't know, therefore God must have done it. In science, if there is no good evidence, or no currently feasible method to test some theories, one simply has to accept that there is uncertainty until someone finds a way to solve the problem (without really knowing if that will actually happen).

Of course, some people cannot stand uncertainty, and seek explanations they can believe without proof. Science is the opposite: it demands proof, but can never provide certainty (because proof of natural laws is always incomplete: one can not have complete data about every possible state of the universe).

In fact, the opposite is true: every theory that has to be changed is a victory for science, because such changes happen because new discoveries are made that improve our knowledge about how things work, and get rid of old misconceptions. I agree that this is true of "science" but not of all "scientists". There is often a lot of subjectivity involved, whether the scientist is religious, non-religious, financially involved, etc.
Correct. Many new theories were opposed by those who were a bit too fond of the old methods, but still accepted when good evidence was provided. Some scientists certainly behaved badly when their pet theory was under attack, but science as a whole still advanced.

This happens everywhere, not just in science. For example, politics should not be about corruption and bribery, yet for some politicians still do it.

But if schools teach science not as this process of refinement, but merely as a disconnected set of facts that the student has to learn, those students could be forgiven for not noticing a difference. Sounds nice to me.
And there are worse cases: schools teaching things that are know to be incorrect.
A few examples: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html (http://www.ems.psu.edu/%7Efraser/BadScience.html)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12705167/
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/vision/Galileo.html

Intelligent Design advocates something that you could call "the God of the gaps". Basically, whenever there is a gap in our understanding of the world, that means God must have been involved. If there is a god and it is understood that G-d is the creator, then this is true.
So, before people understood electricity, it was explained as God being angry and destroying something, throwing a hammer, etc... And this has been disproven. In fact, do you know of any religious people who believe this today? I don't. But it's not relevant to creationism. In fact, it's similar to science in the way that it was an assumed theory, proven incorrect and accepted by all.
As science progressed, the number of gaps decreased, and with it the importance of this particular type of God. Lost me there. What does this mean?
Well, if you have this "god of the gaps", anything that has no good scientific explanation is described as an act of that god. When a good mechanism is found to explain the problem, a gap in our knowledge is closed, and this type of god loses some territory to science. This type of god is in direct conflict with science, because every scientific advance comes at the expense of some of that god's authority.

The error is in wanting to see the divine in things that, while not immediately obvious, are certainly testable by science once the experimental methods become advanced enough.

So, the "lightning happens because God throws lightning bolts" idea has been disproven. OK, then we had (and to some extent still have) the "God created the earth 6000 years ago". Well, scientific evidence points towards something more like 4.5 billion years. Then "God created the Big Bang". That's where we are now. If science finds a good model of some other structure that would have been the source of the Big Bang, then we'll simply move to claiming that God created that structure.

This "god of the gaps" is not the only possible view of God. For an alternative:
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006

ID is just a bunch of people who feel the need to attack some domain of science to make people believe there are more gaps in our knowledge. This itself is a childish attack.
Allow me to illustrate their methods. I gave a link to a site illustrating bad science which sometimes gets in textbooks. Well, here's a similar link:
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_lerner1000.htm
This one's written by a creationist. He's right about some things about those moths and embryos. There really were flawed parts in there. However, he uses that as an argument to attack the teaching of evolution, by giving the impression that the flaws in those examples have a serious impact on the theory. Well, they don't. The original studies got some things wrong, but not in a way that contradicts evolution (and in the peppered moth case, not even in a way that seriously contradicts the conclusions of the peppered moths study itself). For a discussion of this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

Note that several scientists were quite upset about how their words were twisted and selectively quoted to support the creationist agenda.


It still does not deal with the article I previously linked to. Waiting for a scientific response. :roll:

Quotes from article in bold...

In the apt phrase of Berkely law professor Philip Johnson, Darwinism is the "creation story of scientific naturalism," the doctrine that everything can be explained by natural, material forces.

Bad description. First, it only describes biological evolution. The creation of the universe, for example, is not part of Darwinism. Also, the theory doesn't claim completeness, there still are gaps in our knowledge, especially about the early origins of life (single celled organisms that died more than a billion years ago usually don't leave much evidence).

Darwinism is also a somewhat ambiguous term for the modern theory of evolution, because it has several meanings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Some pontification by some well known atheists follows. Let's skip to the interesting stuff...

Karl Popper famously defined a scientific theory as one that can be falsified. When Einstein propounded his General Theory of Relativity, for instance, he made a series of bold predictions based on the theory.

By contrast, Darwinists proceed by assuming the truth of the theory and then seeking empirical support. Studies of the fossil record that fail to buttress the theory are deemed "failures" and never published. The search for Darwinian common "ancestors", according to Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History, proceeds on the assumption that those ancestors exist and then selecting the most likely candidates.

This is ignoring that, in several cases, missing links in the fossil record were identified, which later were found in sediments of the expected age. The theory may not be able to predict what humans will look like one million years from now (and if it could, it'd take too much time to verify), but it certainly has been able to make testable predictions about which fossils may still be out there.

The mechanism by which nature is alleged to have fashioned a single ancestor into both whales and man has never been observed.
...(example)... That’s a long way from creating new species.

Blantantly false claim. The formation of new species has been observed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Nor can Darwinists explain how complex systems, such as human sight, none of whose component parts would alone provide any advantage, could have come into being by a long series of micro-mutations.

Another false claim.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
(the "argument from incredulity" link there offers an extra explanation of the god of the gaps).
For some specific research comparing the relevant cell types in different organisms:
http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html

The fossil record fails to provide evidence of the millions of transitional species that Darwin’s theory assumes to have existed.

A pattern emerges...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html


The argument that follows, about the origins of DNA, is correct to some extent. There are, indeed, several unknowns regarding the early lifeforms and their origin. We do have some parts of the puzzle, but not enough to get the whole picture. However, it then follows the same argument as before: we don't know, so therefore God did it.

Regarding randomness, this is often misunderstood. Take, for a simple example, a salt crystal. In such a crystal, you have large domains, which are highly ordered with specific atom types sitting in specific places in a rigid lattice. If you took the atoms from a single cristal, perhaps a cubic millimetre big, and put them at random points in space, what is the probability that they would form this crystal? So small that you might consider it nonexistent. Totally improbably. However, the crystal does exist. And it doesn't take much effort to make such crystals from a solution of the salt where those atoms are rather disordered. That's because of the charges and electronic structure on those atoms makes certain configurations preferred (more stable than other confgurations), and once a few of those atoms assemble in such a form, they can act as a nucleation core where more atoms can fit in stable positions, growing the lattice.



I'd also like to note that religion, in the form of creationism, is not alone in its attacks on evolution. Take, for example, the case of Stalin, who preferred Lamarckism (specifically Lysenkoism) for ideological reasons. The purge of a number of biologists that followed was bad news for Soviet agriculture.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_2.html

[Fish]

I have posted this before and I'll gladly post it again:

Think Again: Charlie Darwin's Angels (http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/917/), by Jonathan Rosenblum, Jerusalem Post, January 12, 2006
You are a creationist? :o
Of course, she is.
Well, most probably. :hmm: I say that because there's room for Darwin's theory, or parts thereof, in Judaic commentaries on the Genesis. But the bottom line is it makes no difference to me in any way how G-d created the universe and its contents.

Now, if the initial "shock" of my opinion has worn off, would anyone care to address the article I linked to?

So, you lean completely on the Judaic commentaries? And not on your own intelect, which I think is above average?

[Fish]

How is this for a way to sort out the issue. If you believe in a Divinity and God doesn’t exist, no harm, no foul. If you don’t believe in a Divinity, and God does exist, well then I guess we all know the answer to that, don’t we.

No, what is the answer? :hmm:

[Wim Libaers]

How is this for a way to sort out the issue. If you believe in a Divinity and God doesn’t exist, no harm, no foul. If you don’t believe in a Divinity, and God does exist, well then I guess we all know the answer to that, don’t we.
No, what is the answer? :hmm:

Well, it's a pretty old argument. If you want to know the details, you can read this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

[TheSatyr]

I have to disagree strongly with those who think the USA is not becoming a theocracy.

When Bush,Cheney et all can't get through a simple conversation without evoking "God" and they seem to do it constantly...we have a problem.

When religious groups constantly try to get creationism into biology classes throughout the country...we have a problem.

When churches and priests have get out the vote drives...and they only support one political party...we have a problem.

When religious views are held as a litmus test in some political races...we have a problem.

When some countries view some of our foreign policy decisions as being based more on our President's religious views than on anything else...we have a problem.

In my 46 years I have NEVER seen Christianity or any other religion be this powerful politically before.

Welcome to the Theocratic States of America.

(And before anybody accuses me of being a liberal...I'm a moderate republican who thinks my party has been highjacked by the christian right.).

[August]

In my 46 years I have NEVER seen Christianity or any other religion be this powerful politically before.

That's because you haven't lived more than 46 years.

If you think Bush is bad with the God references, which BTW he has the right to make, you should check out some of the things the founding fathers wrote, or try Lincoln:

From his 2nd Inaugral address:
.....Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.

"Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that itthe judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said " With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

[tedhealy]

You don't have to go back to the founding fathers to find god references, just go back to the previous occupant.

Just a simple search for clinton speeches god and you'll get more than a few hits.

My favorite was

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wjcoklahomabombingspeech.htm

To all my fellow Americans beyond this hall, I say, one thing we owe those who have sacrificed is the duty to purge ourselves of the dark forces which gave rise to this evil. They are forces that threaten our common peace, our freedom, our way of life. Let us teach our children that the God of comfort is also the God of righteousness: Those who trouble their own house will inherit the wind.¹ Justice will prevail.

Let us let our own children know that we will stand against the forces of fear. When there is talk of hatred, let us stand up and talk against it. When there is talk of violence, let us stand up and talk against it. In the face of death, let us honor life. As St. Paul admonished us, Let us "not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

[Onkel Neal]

Avon Lady and August,

If G-d blesses anyone, he has to bless THE **** everyone, not only the Americans.


Well, it's very simple really. God blessed America more because,... well, because we're America!! It's pretty blessed to be American ;)

Reminds me of the episode of Mystery Science Fiction theater where the in an old 50's b&w flick some US space travellers were returning from Mars and when they first see the Earth, it is basically a globe... no clouds, and the typical western hemisphere showing.. and the voiceover said, "There's Earth! With the USA showing, as it should be."

[Iceman]

Pluto is a planet...oh wait...no...um no it isn't....trust me it is a scientifically proven fact!...until we discover that we don't know jack! lol...don't feel bad it is the same thing I try to tell my wife who thinks "Doctors" have it all figured out...don't mistake me science and doctors etc have made the world a better place...clean water good food...penicillin etc...but they don't know it all...case in point again...a doctor tells a patient...you will absolutly positivley never walk or wake from a comma etc...how many times has that been dis-proven....bottom line when your green you grow when your ripe you rot!..stay green or smoke green lol. :) jk

[The Avon Lady]

Now I´m confused. What´s your point? Why did you ask the atheists to explain the big bang when, as you say, your religion has no problem understanding the big-bang theory? Which btw doesn´t of course explain everything, especially not the "How do you get something out of nothing?" part.

who have believed in G-d for good historical reasons (http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai$.asp)
The "national revelation" thing is a good historical reason for you, I don´t believe a word of it. I won´t let an ancient book tell me what to think, eat, drink or how to behave.
Not expected of you.

But the "ancient book" is what has been handed down verbally from parents to children since that very time.

Must finish coffee and pack off kiddies. Later. ;)

[August]

I won´t let an ancient book tell me what to think, eat, drink or how to behave.

So you reject the concept of "Thou shalt not steal" or "bear false witness" or "lie" or "murder"? Just because you don't buy into the whole organized religion thing, which BTW i don't either, doesn't mean the Bible doesn't contain some darned good advice.

Rejecting advice just because you don't like it's source makes no sense. If the bible said the sky is blue would you reject that too?

[Gizzmoe]

I won´t let an ancient book tell me what to think, eat, drink or how to behave.
So you reject the concept of "Thou shalt not steal" or "bear false witness" or "lie" or "murder"?
No, but these (social) concepts are nothing new. The Bible didn´t invent them, they existed long before that in many societies. You can be raised 100% atheist and still have a concept of what is right or wrong.

Just because you don't buy into the whole organized religion thing, which BTW i don't either, doesn't mean the Bible doesn't contain some darned good advice.

That´s true.

[August]

I won´t let an ancient book tell me what to think, eat, drink or how to behave.
So you reject the concept of "Thou shalt not steal" or "bear false witness" or "lie" or "murder"?
No, but these (social) concepts are nothing new. The Bible didn´t invent them, they existed long before that in many societies. You can be raised 100% atheist and still have a concept of what is right or wrong.

I didn't claim the Bible invented those concepts, but it does promote them and therefore has value as a social guide.

[Gizzmoe]

I didn't claim the Bible invented those concepts, but it does promote them and therefore has value as a social guide.
Generally speaking, yes. And the Bible isn´t the only scripture that does that.

[Neutrino 123]

Quantum Physics in a nutshell says that "Any Thing" is possible...this is true.This has been taught by Christianity for over 2000 years now with one difference..."I can do ALL things through Christ which strengtheneth me".We believe the "Power" comes from and originates from God to do anything according to the will of God.

To laugh at the Dead Sea Scrolls is a mistake by dismissing them in the belief that they must be wrong by your only evidence being that "Christians" believe the Earth has only been around for 10,000 yrs.

Consider Einstein and the theory of realativity and the understanding of time...the closer one comes to the speed of light time begins to slow yet "Man" has determined that it can never be done that is travel at the speed of light...if this theory is true and God claiming to be "Light" itself living for Him would mean "Time" does not exsist and therefore one does not age hence Eternity...

so if God created the heavens and all the Earth in seven days what is seven days to God?....a year a thousand yrs,,,a million a billion?...you tell me what is time to a being where time really has no bearing on anything.


Quantum physics might indicate that "anything" is possible, but keep in mind that it is not a theory of everything. The next improved theory that supercedes quantum theory might say anything is not possible. This hypothetical theory obviously wouldn't make people change their religion, so why have supernatural explanations for quantum mechanics in the first place? Don't try to bring in religion into science, since science might change, as it has in the past.

I am not familiar at all with the Dead Sea Scrolls, though a quick google search indicates it was an important archeology finding.?

Finally, assuming God moves at the speed of light, then NO time would pass for him, not seven days. Of course, he could have some mass and be moving very quickly (close to c), in which case seven days could pass for him while several billion years pass elsewhere. If God's speed varies, then the different time periods in the bible could be one day for God. However, isn't this explanation getting a bit silly? Why bother trying to comprehend God using scientific theories?

There is no sense in taking the bible literally. Look at "Thou shall not kill" for example. Literally, this isn't just "don't murder", but a command never to kill, regardless of the circumstances. Only a tiny percentage of fundementalist Christans take it literally, which is fortunate, since there are many good reasons one could have to kill people. It is the damn hippies that follow THAT particular commandment...:ping:

As for being a gambler, in a way, every action anyone takes is a gamble. Specifically, though, for every situation in which there is promise of eternal happiness, there is a mirror situation in which the same actions cause eternal unhappiness. The probabilities of these are infinitesamal anyway, so I only use evidance as grounds for basing a decision upon.

[Neutrino 123]

Pluto is a planet...oh wait...no...um no it isn't....trust me it is a scientifically proven fact!...until we discover that we don't know jack!

Oh come on! The Pluto controversy was not about establishing facts, but about classification schemes! I'm glad Pluto finally got the boot, though.:ping:
Of course, scientists should have considered the popular ramifacations of Pluto's reclassification. Now we are even more unpopular...


Well, it's very simple really. God blessed America more because,... well, because we're America!! It's pretty blessed to be American ;)


'cause America has Texas, right?
(and now you can let me in on the secret project...)

[The Noob]

No say what you think, but who are you to say religon is backward? How many people died in the name of state atheism? (IE. Communism)?

You seem to be saying that religion cannot be blamed for the people
killed and tortured in its name, but atheism can.

I agree that nothing in Christianity requires mass murder and mass
torture. And yet Christians have done it as -- according to them --
part of their faith. You excuse this as the doings of people who are
not "true" Christians. Who are you to judge their faith?

Likewise, nothing in atheism requires mass murder and mass torture.
And yet some atheists have committed those deeds. (Never mind the
question of whether Hitler himself or Nazis in general were atheists
-- I'll generously grant you that point without agreeing.) But I
don't attempt to excuse such deeds as false atheism. Atheism in
itself does not espouse any kind of action, because it's simply the
lack of belief in any god. No, not logic, and no, not science --
atheism is simply the lack of a belief.

State and religion has to be seperate from each other. The "one nation under god" quote from Bush shows: Atheist are not wantet in america. This is Racist. And this is what all religions are to a certain degree.

You ask me how many people died in the name of state atheism (Communism)? I can tell you: 100,000,000 and the aditional 30,000,000 who died in wars ecetera.

(Apart from that, true communism never existet. What was in russia i call "Russoism".)

How many people died in the name of State-Religion or religion in General? No sources can be found. (Of course i would be very happy to see someone post this, i couldn't find anything) This shows an obsession to blame atheism.

[The Avon Lady]

There is no sense in taking the bible literally. Look at "Thou shall not kill" for example. Literally, this isn't just "don't murder", but a command never to kill, regardless of the circumstances. Only a tiny percentage of fundementalist Christans take it literally, which is fortunate, since there are many good reasons one could have to kill people. It is the damn hippies that follow THAT particular commandment...:ping:
This is not the first time that I've had to point out that the 6th commandment is specifically "Thou shall not MURDER.". The words in the Torah's Hebrew text is "Lo tirtzach" - "Do not murder", and not "Lo taharog" - "Do not kill." The word "tirtzach" in Hebrew throughout the entire Torah and Scriptures has no other meaning than criminal murder.

And yet, you still don't see all those fundamentalist Christians running around the world, slaughtering in the name of heaven and claiming it's justified because it's not considered murder. And I'll bet even after the entire Christian world discovers my post here at SubSim :p , that they still won't go galavanting around, killing blasphemers and aethiests. Nope. :nope:

Think again.

Will get back and respond to more posts later, if time permits.

[The Avon Lady]

State and religion has to be seperate from each other.
Yes and no. For a simple historical perspective of both sides of the coin, read Wikipedia's entry on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_States).

Just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean anything "has to be."
The "one nation under god" quote from Bush shows: Atheist are not wantet in america. This is Racist. And this is what all religions are to a certain degree.
1. What race are aethiest? If a religious person becomes an aethiest, do they change their race? Rhetoric.

2. All Bush Sr.'s quote (Bush Jr. didn't say it) shows is that Bush Sr. is a bigot, disgustingly so. Here's a very religious person (me) who gives Bush's comment a big thumbs down. :down: In fact, I agree with most, maybe all, of what was stated in the video linked to in Von Capo's initial post on this thread, though not to the idiotic, insulting and flamebaiting (hey Gizzmoe - pounce! :ping: ) comic which followed it.

Aethiests live and thrive in America. They walk America's streets just like everyone else. More rhetoric.
You ask me how many people died in the name of state atheism (Communism)? I can tell you: 100,000,000 and the aditional 30,000,000 who died in wars ecetera.

(Apart from that, true communism never existet. What was in russia i call "Russoism".)

How many people died in the name of State-Religion or religion in General? No sources can be found. (Of course i would be very happy to see someone post this, i couldn't find anything) This shows an obsession to blame atheism.
No. It simply points out that people and beliefs can kill, irregardless of whether they are religiously based or not.

[Neutrino 123]

Ah, thank you for pointing that out. It makes the ten commandments much more logical. I've always seen "kill" instead of "murder". I wonder at what point the original meaning was altered? Does the original Latin bible have "kill" or "murder" in it?

Anyway, I don't see how my post could be interpreted as thinking that a bunch of Christans will randomly start killing in the name of god. Nearly all branches of Christianity are more advanced in modern times then in the past, so holy wars are generally off their agenda.

On the religion vs. atheism kill ratio topic, I would like to point out that most religious and atheist people do not kill in the name of their religion or lack of one. Religion is often incidental.

Take Stalin, for example. His state was certainly atheist, but the number of people he killed because of their religion is small compared to the number of people he killed for other crap reasons. I would hazard a guess that the number of religious people killed by atheists because of their religion is fairly small, not on the order of many tens of millions.

Similarly, while religion has certainly caused many deather, the recent Northern Ireland conflict, for example, is more about nationalism then religion (today, of course). Several conflicts in hstory also merely have religion as a pretext rather then the prime factor. Thus, one must be careful when determining the actual amount of people killed by religion.

I really don't see why the kill ratios matter, though. We need to look at things how they are today and projected to be in the future, to determine how to act.

[The Avon Lady]

Ah, thank you for pointing that out. It makes the ten commandments much more logical. I've always seen "kill" instead of "murder". I wonder at what point the original meaning was altered? Does the original Latin bible have "kill" or "murder" in it?
That's not my department. :roll: :p
Anyway, I don't see how my post could be interpreted as thinking that a bunch of Christans will randomly start killing in the name of god.
I misunderstood you. Sorry.
Nearly all branches of Christianity are more advanced in modern times then in the past, so holy wars are generally off their agenda.
You might be interested in getting hold of the book "The Subversion of Christianity" by Jacques Ellul and reading the chapter "The Influence of Islam."

I challenge you to find a new testatement based teaching on "holy wars."
On the religion vs. atheism kill ratio topic, I would like to point out that most religious and atheist people do not kill in the name of their religion or lack of one. Religion is often incidental.
Personally, I think it can go either way but I don't consider the statistic very relevant one way or the other.
Take Stalin, for example. His state was certainly atheist, but the number of people he killed because of their religion is small compared to the number of people he killed for other crap reasons. I would hazard a guess that the number of religious people killed by atheists because of their religion is fairly small, not on the order of many tens of millions.
I think the point being argued by others here was about the murderer's religiousity or lack thereof - not the victims.

[sonar732]

Years ago, I decided that to argue with someone over their religious views was only making me into an angry person who lost track of my relationship with Jesus Christ. One of my favorite themes that came from the internet is "Give me one fact from your source, and I can find five to rebuke it". Whether those five facts are actual facts, or just someone posting garbage on the net isn't the case. The case is to make my debator think it is fact so they could be molded into what I'm stating.

This next comment is directed to "Christ-ians" or "people like Christ". One must show your relationship as Christ living in you. The evil one is attempting to suck you into the trap of "exposing" your hipocracy. God has a plan for all of us, it's just a matter of accepting that plan!

I'll leave it at this...I've seen bumper stickers with "God is my co-pilot". I say, give him the yoke and see what happens!

[VON_CAPO]

[quote=VON_CAPO]You just want to make fun of all religion and religious people than sorry I am not. Ok, your opinion is welcome, but not shared. :up:

[VON_CAPO]

Anyone disputing the book's credibility, is driven by the devil. ;)

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/6151/iknowthebibleistruesophil3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[August]

I didn't claim the Bible invented those concepts, but it does promote them and therefore has value as a social guide.
Generally speaking, yes. And the Bible isn´t the only scripture that does that.

Very true.

[The Avon Lady]

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/6151/iknowthebibleistruesophil3.gif
Again, not speaking for others here, that's not what my faith is based upon (http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai$.asp).

[sonar732]

VON_CAPO...

You misquoted me and the funny thing about it is that you even bolded my statement. I said..."The evil one is attempting to suck you into a trap of "exposing" your hipocracy."

You however, are attempting to link my statement to people discrediting the bible. There is no link what-so-ever.

[VON_CAPO]

VON_CAPO...

You misquoted me and the funny thing about it is that you even bolded my statement. I said..."The evil one is attempting to suck you into a trap of "exposing" your hipocracy."

You however, are attempting to link my statement to people discrediting the bible. There is no link what-so-ever.Fixed. Sorry, I apologize.

[VON_CAPO]

An extremely worrisome idea: :-?:-?:-?

From the book "Letter to a Christian Nation" ---> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307265773/ also ---> http://www.samharris.org/site/book_letter_to_christian_nation/

""" Note to the Reader:

Forty-four percent of the American population is convinced that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years.

According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry here on earth.

It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen—the return of Christ.

It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves—socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically.

Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious.

The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency. """

It recalls me the Jim Jones incident at Guyana. :shifty::shifty::shifty:

[August]

The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.

Assuming for a moment that you are correct, what do you think should be done about it? Tell people they have to abandon their religion? Disprove God? What?

[Gizzmoe]

Again, not speaking for others here, that's not what my faith is based upon (http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai$.asp).
I like the "It has to be true since it´s impossible to make such a story up" (yeah, right...) attitude, combined with the smug "Our religion is the best" attitude. :88)

[The Avon Lady]

Again, not speaking for others here, that's not what my faith is based upon (http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai$.asp).
I like the "It has to be true since it´s impossible to make such a story up" (yeah, right...) attitude, combined with the smug "Our religion is the best" attitude. :88)
So, forget about "it has to be true". Try "it very well can be true". And it's quite rational.

As for smugness, the major religions of the world contradict each other. Either they're all wrong or 1 of them is right. An appropriate smiley is called for: :smug:

:p

[VON_CAPO]

the major religions of the world contradict each other. Either they're all wrong or 1 of them is right. An appropriate smiley is called for: :smug:
:p
This is amazing, I never thought that you can show such humble level of frankness. :o:o:o

[The Avon Lady]

the major religions of the world contradict each other. Either they're all wrong or 1 of them is right. An appropriate smiley is called for: :smug:
:p
This is amazing, I never thought that you can show such humble level of frankness. :o:o:o
I'm not surprised you could show such a brazen level of subjectivity.

[VON_CAPO]

[quote=VON_CAPO]I'm not surprised you could show such a brazen level of subjectivity. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:This is the regular militant that I know!!!

By the way, I refuse your imputation, I only show facts. :yep::yep::yep:

[sonar732]

...I only show facts. :yep::yep::yep:
...Reference my post regarding facts on the internet....

[Gizzmoe]

So, forget about "it has to be true". Try "it very well can be true". And it's quite rational.
Sorry, but I can´t try "it very well can be true". ;) A god - through a fire - spoke to three million people more than 3000 years ago? :hmm:

Many grew up with this story, many were taught to believe it. The usual religious indoctrination, like it happens in most (all?) other religions. At best I give it 0.01% chance that the story is actually true. The thing is, no one can actually prove that it happened.

As for smugness, the major religions of the world contradict each other. Either they're all wrong or 1 of them is right. An appropriate smiley is called for: :smug:

:)

[VON_CAPO]

...Reference my post regarding facts on the internet.... Why you, August & others ask me to answer or to do something?
To demonstrate you that I am wrong?
Better, demostrate that you are right.

Are you so trained by religion to suppress your rational mind that the logic is beyond your reach?

You are leaning on a concept called "faith", that as you know, it is the suppression of the rational thought to accept unbelievable myths.

Think about it. ;)

[The Avon Lady]

So, forget about "it has to be true". Try "it very well can be true". And it's quite rational.
Sorry, but I can´t try "it very well can be true". ;) A god - through a fire - spoke to three million people more than 3000 years ago? :hmm:
Nobody's asking you to try it, per se. Of course, you could always argue that we Jews are known for our chutzpah and this claim has got to be the most chutzpahdik of all. So it figures. :p
Many grew up with this story, many were taught to believe it. The usual religious indoctrination, like it happens in most (all?) other religions. At best I give it 0.01% chance that the story is actually true. The thing is, no one can actually prove that it happened.
Really what other religion makes a claim that an entire nation witnessed G-d?

How did we get away with it?

When did we start this?

[VON_CAPO]

I am wondering, what is necessary to reverse years of indoctrination and liberate this people? :hmm::hmm::hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

I only show facts. :yep::yep::yep:
:nope: :nope: :nope:

The following are a sample of verbatim quotes of statements you have made or quoted in this thread which are opinions - not facts:
"The dark age is coming."

"The theocratic State. This is happening in America right now!"

"Yet, in 1954 - fueled by the Cold War and blinded by McCarthyism - Congress violated its oath."

"Religious american society's point of view about atheists: ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU"

"Followers of mythology and superstition are who proclaim "eternal life" and "judgment day" (something like their god will come to kill everyone, and only the chosen ones will survive).
Also they have a folklore of: souls, phantoms, zombies, halloween, 666, vampires, etc. Well, you know, this people believes in supernatural stuff. Their behavior is driven by fear.

"I take this sentence as mine."

"Anyone disputing the book's credibility, is driven by the devil."

"The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency."

"By the way, I refuse your imputation, I only show facts."

[Gizzmoe]

I am wondering, what is necessary to reverse years of indoctrination and liberate this people? :hmm::hmm::hmm:
Liberate from what? Most religious people are quite happy with what they are, as are most atheists. To each his own.

[sonar732]

Are you so trained by religion to suppress your rational mind that the logic is beyond your reach?

I am rational enough to know there is no such thing as "luck"...it is a divine intervention. Perfect example is one that someone elluded to earlier. If someone was suppose to either die or live in a comma, but came out of it...where is the rationalisation of it?

You are leaning on a concept called "faith", that as you know, it is the suppression of the rational thought to accept unbelievable myths.

The definition of faith is very broad...

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief), trust (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trust).
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

So, you are saying that if you have faith that your parents would do something for you...whether it be playing catch with you or protecting you from harm, that it's irrational? A child doesn't have a rational mind per say...they rely on faith.



Think about it. ;)

I have. ;)

[VON_CAPO]

I am wondering, what is necessary to reverse years of indoctrination and liberate this people? :hmm::hmm::hmm:
Liberate from what? Most religious people are quite happy with what they are, as are most atheists. To each his own. From the basis of teaching of the religions, that postulate how to live and how to think, always under the sight of punitive gods.. I think their minds are not calm and they need gods desperately to get relieve of their diary personal struggle.
Of course, this is just a temporary line of thought. (a wondering)

But, as you said: "To teach his own", I leave the subject alone. :yep:

[August]

Why you, August & others ask me to answer or to do something?

To demonstrate you that I am wrong?
Better, demostrate that you are right.

Why should we? You're the one who made the claim that America is slipping into theocracy, so defend your statements or admit you're wrong.

Are you so trained by religion to suppress your rational mind that the logic is beyond your reach?

Are you so blinded by hatred for God that you suppress your rational mind in favor of illogical scaremongering?

You are leaning on a concept called "faith", that as you know, it is the suppression of the rational thought to accept unbelievable myths.

Think about it. ;)

Wow, an athiest is claiming God is unbelievable. Now who would have thunk it? And your definition of faith is wrong. Is it a suppression of rational thought to have faith the sun will rise in the morning?

Again, you're the person claiming there's a problem here, not us, so i'd be interested in hearing your solutions to the "problem" of millions of people making a candidates religion their voting criteria, or the fact that our Chief Executive is a beleiver, or religious authorities recommending their congregations vote for one candidate or another. C'mon Capo, according to you this is a big problem right? So what are you gonna do about it?

[VON_CAPO]

So, you are saying that if you have faith that your parents would do something for you...whether it be playing catch with you or protecting you from harm, that it's irrational? A child doesn't have a rational mind per say...they rely on faith.
You are playing with the words, it was pretty clear the subject.;)

[Gizzmoe]

Of course, you could always argue that we Jews are known for our chutzpah and this claim has got to be the most chutzpahdik of all. So it figures. :p
:lol: :up:

Really what other religion makes a claim that an entire nation witnessed G-d?
None, as you know.

How did we get away with it?
Good question. It certainly helped that it supposedly happened 3000 years ago. Back then it was even easier to fake stories than it is today.

The article concluded that it´s absolutely impossible to make up such a story. Do you agree with that or can you imagine that´s there is a chance (however small) that the story isn´t true?

When did we start this?
Dunno.

[sonar732]

So, you are saying that if you have faith that your parents would do something for you...whether it be playing catch with you or protecting you from harm, that it's irrational? A child doesn't have a rational mind per say...they rely on faith. You are playing with the words, it was pretty clear the subject.;)

As is the definition that I posted. ;)

[The Avon Lady]

The article concluded that it´s absolutely impossible to make up such a story. Do you agree with that or can you imagine that´s there is a chance (however small) that the story isn´t true?
I don't know. The Torah's text has retained its text wherever we Jews have traveled. There is no major difference (other than a letter or pronunciation vowel here and there) between Torah scroll written in the past or in Israel, Europe, Morocco, England, Russia, etc.

The entire Torah is read, in portions, every Sabbath, over the span of each Jewish calendar year, repeated again every year. This is listed as one of the commandents instituted by Moses himself.

The article early on quotes verses in Deuteronomy that state:

[Moses told the Israelites]: 'Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld. Do not remove this memory from your heart all the days of your life. Teach your children and your children's children about the day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horev [Mount Sinai]...

God spoke to you from the midst of the fire, you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His covenant, instructing you to keep the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.' (Deut.4:9-13)

'You have been shown in order to know that God, He is the Supreme Being. There is none besides Him. From heaven he let you hear His voice in order to teach you, and on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words amid the fire.' (Deut. 4:32-36)

Moses called all of Israel and said to them: 'Hear, O Israel, the decrees and the ordinances that I speak in your ears today -- learn them, and be careful to perform them. The Lord your God sealed a covenant with us at Horev [Mount Sinai]. Not with our forefathers did God seal this covenant, but with us -- we who are here, all of us alive today. Face to face did God speak with you on the mountain from amid the fire.' (Deut. 5:1-4)

I will get a little bit smirky again and add that the importance of education has always been a high priority religious obligation in Judaism.

Now explain to me how an entire nation accepted as fact the above verses if they were introduced to them "after the fact", with no continuity that anyone beforehand ever heard of? I wouldn't. I don't know anyone that would. Would you? I assume not.

Again, think about it. :hmm:

[VON_CAPO]

You're the one who made the claim that America is slipping into theocracy, so defend your statements or admit you're wrong.There are many post making an introduction and exposition of the subject.
Did not read them? Did you properly understood them?
Are you so blinded by hatred for God that you suppress your rational mind in favor of illogical scaremongering? It is impossible to hate something no existent.

[August]

There are many post making an introduction and exposition of the subject.
Did not read them? Did you properly understood them?
I read them and understood them. Have you bothered reading the many replies? This thread is about your claim that my country is slipping headlong into theocracy. I and many others who actually live here have said this is wrong. Why do you refuse to believe it?

It is impossible to hate something no existent.

You hate the subject enough to start a 5 page thread arguing your point that something needs to be done about this so called problem. You hate disagreement enought to try to invoke moderator action against those that disagree with you.

I don't particularly care whether you believe in God or not, but you will allow myself and billions of people on the planet our beliefs as well.

[VON_CAPO]

[quote=VON_CAPO]
I read them and understood them. Have you bothered reading the many replies? This thread is about your claim that my country is slipping headlong into theocracy. I and many others who actually live here have said this is wrong. Why do you refuse to believe it?
Because I live here too. Otherwise, why bother?

[The Avon Lady]

You hate disagreement enought to try to invoke moderator action against those that disagree with you.
And his prayers to the forum gods were not acceded to. :oops:

:p

[Gizzmoe]

Now explain to me how an entire nation accepted as fact the above verses if they were introduced to them "after the fact", with no continuity that anyone beforehand ever heard of? I wouldn't. I don't know anyone that would. Would you? I assume not.

Again, think about it. :hmm:
I honestly can´t answer that. But in a religion where I am not allowed to eat things like shrimp cocktails, pork chops, lobster thermidor, cheeseburger, prosciutto or salami pizza, smoked eel, sturgeon caviar or steak smothered in cream gravy everything is possible. Think about it! :D ;) Sorry... :)

In which year did the first complete version of the Torah appear? How old is the oldest existing Torah?

[VON_CAPO]

You hate disagreement enought to try to invoke moderator action against those that disagree with you. And his prayers to the forum gods were not acceded to. :oops:

:p I think you and your troupe got into the right place. :p

EDIT #1: Now everybody is going to play by the book.
General topics's dirty tricks... no more. :p:p:p

EDIT #2: The prayers had been fulfilled, the moderator is here "in person". :rock::rock::rock:

[The Avon Lady]

Now explain to me how an entire nation accepted as fact the above verses if they were introduced to them "after the fact", with no continuity that anyone beforehand ever heard of? I wouldn't. I don't know anyone that would. Would you? I assume not.

Again, think about it. :hmm:
I honestly can´t answer that. But in a religion where I am not allowed to eat things like shrimp cocktails, pork chops, lobster thermidor, cheeseburger, prosciutto or salami pizza, smoked eel, sturgeon caviar or steak smothered in cream gravy everything is possible. Think about it! :D ;) Sorry... :)
We just finished thick shoulder steaks for supper. :)
In which year did the first complete version of the Torah appear?
About 3500 years ago, on the last day of Moses' life:

"Then Moses wrote this Torah, and gave it to the priests, the descendants of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel."
- Deuteronomy 31:9

How old is the oldest existing Torah?
About 650 years old (http://www.ascent.org.il/cgi-bin/ascent.cgi?Name=abuhav2).

The leather parchments deteriorate and the ink fades and cracks, rendering the Torah invalid. Writing a Torah requires exactitude. One mistake, even the ink of 2 letters touching one another, invalidates the Torah from being used for obligatory readings. That's how demanding we are in accuracy.

[Gizzmoe]

About 650 years old (http://www.ascent.org.il/cgi-bin/ascent.cgi?Name=abuhav2).

So there´s roughly 2850 years between the oldest existing Torah and the "original" one. Guess what comes next... ;) In 2850 years a lot of things can happen, how can you be sure that no one actually changed parts of it to their liking at one point? That wouldn´t be the only scripture where that happened...

[The Avon Lady]

About 650 years old (http://www.ascent.org.il/cgi-bin/ascent.cgi?Name=abuhav2).

So there´s roughly 2850 years between the oldest existing Torah and the "original" one. Guess what comes next... ;) In 2850 years a lot of things can happen, how can you be sure that no one actually changed parts of it to their liking at one point? That wouldn´t be the only scripture where that happened...
Please explain how come there has never been a major discepancy anytime in the 1000's of years of Jewish history between Torahs throughout the world?

If someone slipped something in:

1. How did it get everywhere else, where the text was not like that (and again, there never has been such a case - scoure the almost 2 volumes of both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, which quibbles over the smallest legal differences and you won't find a single instance of a major disgression between Torah texts anywhere.

2. How did everyone accept what it said when that's not what it said the day before and when it clearly states that it's referring to their ancestors who came out of Egypt? This was the original point made a few post's back (i.e., neither you nor I would stand for this).

[Gizzmoe]

I can´t answer any of that. All I´m saying is that 2850 years are a bloody long time, and though it doesn´t automatically mean that something was changed, it is kinda likely that at one point someone or a group of people actually changed parts of the scripture, by adding or removing something or whatever. If you would tell me that 2500 years ago there were like thousands of Torahs then it would be indeed very unlikely that something was changed, but still not impossible.

[The Avon Lady]

I can´t answer any of that. All I´m saying is that 2850 years are a bloody long time, and though it doesn´t automatically mean that something was changed, it is kinda likely that at one point someone actually changed parts of the scripture, by adding or removing something or whatever. If you would tell me that 2500 years ago there were like thousands of Torahs then it would be indeed very unlikely that something was changed,
2500 years ago there were like thousands of Torahs. :smug:
but still not impossible.
Is the inverse of that "probable"? :o :hmm: You said it, not me. ;)

[Gizzmoe]

Is the inverse of that "probable"? :o :hmm: You said it, not me. ;)
:88)

I have enough for today... :) Laila Tov!

[Yahoshua]

I beg to differ in that there is the competing accuracies between the Masoretic texts, the LXX, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but does this subject need another thread or is it fine right here? (gtg school, lunch is over).

[SUBMAN1]

Wow! Why are so many people concerned about religion? Believe it, or not. That is the answer. Choose wisely!

-S

[VON_CAPO]

Legislating Violations of the Constitution:


From: ---> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901055.html?sub=AR

By Erwin Chemerinsky
Special to washingtonpost.com
Saturday, September 30, 2006; 12:00 AM
Erwin Chemerinsky is the Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science, at Duke University.

""" With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees.

The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.


The attorneys' fees statute has worked well for almost 30 years.

Lawyers receive attorneys' fees under the law only if their claim is meritorious and they win in court.

Unsuccessful lawyers get nothing under the law.

This creates a strong disincentive to frivolous suits and encourages lawyers to bring only clearly meritorious ones.

Despite the effectiveness of this statute, conservatives in the House of Representatives have now passed an insidious bill to try and limit enforcement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by denying attorneys fees to lawyers who successfully challenge government actions as violating this key constitutional provision.


Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.

The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional.

The passage of this bill by the House is a disturbing achievement by those who seek to undermine our nation's commitment to fundamental freedoms laid out in the Constitution.

Should it come up for a vote, it is imperative that the Senate reject this nefarious proposal.

The religious right is looking for a way to get away with violating the Establishment Clause and is now one step closer to this goal.

The Establishment Clause is no less important than any other part of the Bill of Rights and suits to enforce it should be treated no differently than any other litigation to enforce civil liberties and civil rights. """

[ASWnut101]

So? If you and the WP are so sure that the bill will be turned down, why are you complaining? I have yet to find this on any other site though.

[Ducimus]

^

Hookay, thats scary. Since im uneducated in this, what was this bills name and did it make it through the senate? Article is a month old.

[August]

^

Hookay, thats scary. Since im uneducated in this, what was this bills name and did it make it through the senate? Article is a month old.

No it hasn't passed the senate.

[The Avon Lady]

Legislating Violations of the Constitution
As always, there's another side to every coin:

When Good Legislation is Abused - Fix It! (http://www.legion.org/?section=pub_relations&subsection=pr_listreleases&content=pr_press_release&id=289).

I'm not a constitutional lawyer but it would appear to me that there might be some middle ground over here where all of this should be leading to.

[Neutrino 123]

I beg to differ in that there is the competing accuracies between the Masoretic texts, the LXX, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but does this subject need another thread or is it fine right here? (gtg school, lunch is over).

While Judaism may be the only monotheist religion that has God speaking directly to a large number of people, that in itself cannot be interpreted as proof of accuracy. The basic premise of the article is that a large number of people supposedly witnessed a supernatural event, so it must have happened or else someone would have called whoever made it up. However, there are hundreds of religions that have large numbers of people witnessing one or more supernatural events. Just a quick google reveals this American Indian story in which a bunch of people go through some big caves and talk to animals and such:
http://www.indians.org/welker/howtheho.htm

There are many more, and I bet the Greeks have some in writing. Religion does not have evidance. You need faith to be religious.

By the way, I found a site that explains the "thou shalt not kill" vs. "thou shalt not murder" question here:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html

[The Avon Lady]

While Judaism may be the only monotheist religion that has God speaking directly to a large number of people, that in itself cannot be interpreted as proof of accuracy. The basic premise of the article is that a large number of people supposedly witnessed a supernatural event, so it must have happened or else someone would have called whoever made it up. However, there are hundreds of religions that have large numbers of people witnessing one or more supernatural events. Just a quick google reveals this American Indian story in which a bunch of people go through some big caves and talk to animals and such:
http://www.indians.org/welker/howtheho.htm

There are many more, and I bet the Greeks have some in writing. Religion does not have evidance. You need faith to be religious.
You have missed several essential points here:

1. Can anyone document the age of this story? Its origins?

2. Do you personally view this story as:

- Definitely true.
- Possibly true.
- Possibly false.
- Definitely false.

And what do you base your decision on?

3. Where and by whom were the Hopis commanded to hand down from generation to generation, since the time of creation according to this, this story and with these particular details? I'm not articulating myself well here. The Torah's text is addressed to those that were there at Sinai to convey everything in exactitude to all future generations. It is not written in a tense stating that such and such happened so much time ago.

Again, think about it. :hmm:
By the way, I found a site that explains the "thou shalt not kill" vs. "thou shalt not murder" question here:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html
It's too bad he did not footnote his claims from Maimonides and Abravenel. I would then have been able to look them up. However, regarding the outstanding verses in Numbers 35, I can quote Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22samson+raphael+hirsch%22), the light of 19th century German Jewry, from his Torah commentary on the 6th Commandment:
Whereas "hereg" and "heymit" <TAL: general Hebrew terms for "killing"> also occur in connection with legal killing, "retzach" always refers to murder. Only in reference to the death which has to be meted out to the murderer does "retzach" occur twice in Numbers 35:27 and 30. There it seems to be used from the standpoint of the murderer himself. He feels the same blade drawn against him that he used against his fellow-man. Perhaps even in these two cases it only refers to the killing by the "goel ha'dom" <TAL: literally, reedemer/revenger of the blood (of the victim)>. That would depend on whether - as it certainly seems to do - the "yirtzach et ha'rotze'ach" <TAL: lit. "shall murder the murderer"> in verse 30 does refer to the "goel ha'dom" <TAL: literally, reedemer/revenger of the blood (of the victim)>. Every shortening of life and even if it is only hastening death by one minute, is considered "shfichut damim" <TAL: "shedding blood"> (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sabbath, 151B).
- The Pentateuch, Translation and Commentary by Rabbi S.R. Hirsch, Rendered into English by Dr. Isaac Levy (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2B%22The+Pentateuch%22+%2B%22Hirsch%22+%2B%22Is aac+Levy%22), Judaica Press, 1971

[sonar732]

Legislating Violations of the Constitution As always, there's another side to every coin:

When Good Legislation is Abused - Fix It! (http://www.legion.org/?section=pub_relations&subsection=pr_listreleases&content=pr_press_release&id=289).

I'm not a constitutional lawyer but it would appear to me that there might be some middle ground over here where all of this should be leading to.

Good link there AL! Here is the link for the actual bill from Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR02679:@@@L&summ2=m&)

[VON_CAPO]

Sex and God: Is Religion Twisted? :hmm::hmm::hmm:

From: ---> http://www.holysmoke.org/haught/sects.html

""" (Free Inquiry, fall 1997)

By James A. Haught

"Christian endeavor," H.L. Mencken wrote, "is notoriously hard on female pulchritude."
He was right, of course, and he should have included Jewish endeavor and Muslim endeavor in his observation.
Western religions have spent millenia inflicting shame, guilt, repression and punishment upon human sexuality -- especially upon women's sexuality.

Asian faiths aren't so punitive. They generally accept lovemaking as a natural part of life.
Some Hindu temples are covered with statues of copulating gods and goddesses.
Millions of Shiva worshipers pray over models of his erect penis. Tantric sects practice ritual intercourse.
But the West presents an opposite, ugly story: a long chronicle of religious hostility to lovers -- for no rational reason.
The Old Testament raged against "whoredom" and decreed brutal penalties for unapproved sex. It commanded that non-virgin brides be stoned to death (Deut. 22:21).

Until recently, thanks to church pressure, nearly every U.S. state had Old Testament-style laws against "fornication" and "sodomy" and the like.
It wasn't until 1972 that the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled that all American couples have a right to birth control.
The clergy's opposition to contraception is based not so much on a desire for limitless breeding as a desire to prevent people from enjoying the sexual freedom brought by birth control.

Sometimes the ministers who rail loudest against "filth" and "pornography" are cloaking their secret sins.
Television evangelists Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker both fell to private sex scandals.
Georgia revivalist Mario Leyva went to prison in 1990 for sodomizing more than 100 church boys, and two assistant pastors likewise were jailed. Numerous such cases appear in the news.
As American clergy endlessly strive to censor sex from public media, an odd contradiction has arisen: Ministers raise little objection to a movie containing 50 murders -- but a glimpse of a woman's nipple brings their wrath.
A popular song commented: "Bullets fly like popcorn on the screen, recommended wholesome, nice and clean.
Making love's the thing that can't be seen. Why?"

Meanwhile, the sexual hangups of Christianity today are trivial compared to those in the Muslim world, where suppression of women continues at Old Testament levels.
Some examples:
-- In Muslim Somalia, an estimated 98 percent of girls are genitally mutilated to inhibit their sexual pleasure throughout their lives and keep them "pure" for husbands. But it doesn't always work. In 1993, a United Nations team found five women being stoned to death for adultery. They had been condemned by mosque leaders, and the execution was carried out after evening prayers.
Cheering villagers videotaped the killing. U.N. observers who tried to save the women were driven off by threats of death. U.N. agent Cecelia Kamau said bitterly: "Fundamentalism is really catching on."
-- In Muslim Algeria, zealots shoot high school girls in the face for not wearing veils, and cut the throats of professors who teach boys and girls in the same classrooms.
-- In Muslim Iran, morality patrols flog women who allow a lock of hair to show beneath their shrouds, and clerics laboriously black out women's faces in imported magazines.
-- In Muslim Saudi Arabia, a teen-age princess and her lover were executed in public in 1977 for the crime of making love.
-- In Muslim Afghanistan, a major mujahideen (holy warrior) leader -- one of those praised by President Reagan as "freedom fighters" -- got his start by throwing acid in the faces of unveiled college girls. Now that even-more-puritanical Taliban religious students have seized Afghanistan, they've decreed that all windows must be painted black, lest someone look at a woman through one, and they stone women to death for being in the company of a man who isn't a relative.

And the hypocritic side is...
"Last year Americans spent more than $8 billion on hard-core videos, live sex acts, adult cable programming, sexual devices, computer porn and sex magazines -- an amount much larger than Hollywood's domestic box office receipts and larger than all the revenues generated by rock and country music albums.
Americans now spend more money at strip clubs than at Broadway, Off-Broadway, regional and nonprofit theaters, at the opera, the ballet, and jazz and classical music performances -- combined."
If Americans rent 665 million X-rated videos each year, as the report said, while conservative churches still say sex is "filth" or "intrinsically evil," someone is out of step with reality.
And it isn't the billions of people who know, deep in their psyches, that lovemaking is intrinsically good.

"The churches are in danger of evolving into havens for the sexually suppressed or, worse, communities of profound hypocrisy."


Sexual repression is the mother of perversion. :yep::yep::yep:

http://img445.imageshack.us/img445/37/z008oe3.gif (http://imageshack.us)http://img416.imageshack.us/img416/1484/z101io3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[The Avon Lady]

Gizzmoe, we need a "yawn" or "snoring" smilie for posts like Von Capo's last one above.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/313/snoringsmileyje3.gif

[Yahoshua]

Boy Capo, you may know whats in those texts but you sure don't understand them!

[TteFAboB]

You mean that he's superstitious?

Anyway. There is an interesting event going on here.

Gizzmoe asks from the rest of us to quote a part of an article and leave the link to it instead of posting the entire thing.

Using a character counter I have noticed that VON_CAPO has posted more or less than half the size of the original articles.

Now if I had to guess why, considering he goes through the hassle of editing the font size and marking parts in bold and underline, plus the additional use of visual images, I'd say it's simply his handicapped way of expressing himself, just like a mute person relies on sign language, and thus the reason why Gizzmoe tolerates articles being copied by half without a single following comment to them: it's his own special way of communicating with the rest of us. Though this is only a hypothesis.

So I'd like to ask for more respect and tolerance from the Avon Lady and especially Yahoshua.

[VON_CAPO]

You mean that he's superstitious?

Anyway. There is an interesting event going on here.

Gizzmoe asks from the rest of us to quote a part of an article and leave the link to it instead of posting the entire thing.

Using a character counter I have noticed that VON_CAPO has posted more or less than half the size of the original articles.

Now if I had to guess why, considering he goes through the hassle of editing the font size and marking parts in bold and underline, plus the additional images, I'd say it's simply his handicapped way of expressing himself, just like a mute person relies on sign language, and thus the reason why Gizzmoe tolerates articles being copied by half without a single following comment to them: it's his own special way of communicating with the rest of us.

So I'd like to ask for more respect and tolerance from the Avon Lady and especially Yahoshua. My knowledge of English is not complete.

And it is impossible to answer and / or rebut each idea posted by your team.

To ensamble with words a complex idea is a huge job to me, add to this to correct misspelled words and grammar errors. (this is the reason almost all my post are edited) :damn::damn::damn:

Additionally, I have got a career to develop, so, I am very limited in time.

I hope you & Co. and Gizzmoe understand this. Thank you. :up:

[SUBMAN1]

Gizzmoe, we need a "yawn" or "snoring" smilie for posts like Von Capo's last one above.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/313/snoringsmileyje3.gif

I second that.

My question is, if religion is to blame for all perverse sexual acts, then I guess rapes, pornography addiction, prostitution and things of this nature would never happen where there is no religion. But hmm, I seem to recall this happening in many Asian non religious countries too!!! But wait, they have no religion, so this shouldn't happen there!!!! Matter of fact, pornography, prostititution, etc. runs rampant in non religious asian communities.

Sorry, if very non religious countries like China, this still happens. It even happened with regularily in the Ex non religious Soviet Union.

To put it into perspective, the most sexually perverse communities on the Earth happen to be the very places where religion is forbbiden!

Von Capo needs to go have his head examined by a shrink. Something is wrong in there. He is blinded by the fact that all religion must be the root of the worlds problems. Quite frankly, its the opposite. Atheism is the root of all the worlds problems simply because it lacks moral boundaries.

-S

[Gizzmoe]

Gizzmoe asks from the rest of us to quote a part of an article and leave the link to it instead of posting the entire thing.

Yep. It´s ok to post a non-copyrighted article if it´s not too long.

[sonar732]

Please note my original post regarding Capo's last one with links to all the preachers wrong doing.

EDIT ADDED: The evil one is attempting to suck you into the trap of "exposing" your hipocracy.

The classic quote here is...

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.

[Gizzmoe]

Atheism is the root of all the worlds problems simply because it lacks moral boundaries.

Yeah, right... :roll:

[VON_CAPO]

Gizzmoe, we need a "yawn" or "snoring" smilie for posts like Von Capo's last one above.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/313/snoringsmileyje3.gif
I second that.
You & Co. have the option to ignore my posts, isn't it? ;)

My question is, if religion is to blame for all perverse sexual acts, then I guess rapes, pornography addiction, prostitution and things of this nature would never happen where there is no religion. This premise is false. The idea exposed is that religion exacerbate perversion, because of repression.
About pornography, should I understand that you stick to the idea that images of humans having sex is bad? :hmm:

Von Capo needs to go have his head examined by a shrink.That is just a personal consideration.

Something is wrong in there. He is blinded by the fact that all religion must be the root of the worlds problems. Quite frankly, its the opposite. Atheism is the root of all the worlds problems simply because it lacks moral boundaries.Another false premise. Not all, but some (or many?).
About moral, should we follow common sense's moral or a ancient books ruling death and harsh punishments to anyone?

[The Avon Lady]

Von Capo needs to go have his head examined by a shrink.
I believe that shrinks, religious, atheist or otherwise, are a major cause sexual perversion. :smug:

Atheism is the root of all the worlds problems simply because it lacks moral boundaries.
Yeah, right...
While atheism isn't the root of all world problems, it's a major potential to cause many because the bottom line is anything goes, as it's assumed that humans and paramecium are both nothing more that biological beings, with no other purpose than to survive, reproduce and die, at the most. Life's red lines can constantly be raised or lowered to suit the whims of the moment or the continuous degradation of moral behavior.

[The Avon Lady]

Gizzmoe, we need a "yawn" or "snoring" smilie for posts like Von Capo's last one above.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/313/snoringsmileyje3.gif
I second that.
You & Co. have the option to ignore my posts, isn't it? ;)
Instead, I expressed my opinion of it.

Really, you've struck bottom with this article you posted. But keep on digging, if down is the direction you're interested in.

[VON_CAPO]

One of the supertition non sense books exposed:

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/4968/biblewarninglabeloi4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[The Avon Lady]

We'll you've dug lower. Pure flamebaiting now? :down:

Childish to the extreme.

[August]

While atheism isn't the root of all world problems, it's a major potential to cause many because the bottom line is anything goes, as it's assumed that humans and paramecium are both nothing more that biological beings, with no other purpose than to survive, reproduce and die, at the most. Life's red lines can constantly be raised or lowered to suit the whims of the moment or the continuous degradation of moral behavior.

Well said.

[VON_CAPO]

We'll you've dug lower. Pure flamebaiting now? :down:

Childish to the extreme.When the rational thought ends, harsh words fly.
The image is not to bother anyone, just to show its effects.

[August]

We'll you've dug lower. Pure flamebaiting now? :down:

Childish to the extreme.When the rational thought ends, harsh words fly.
The image is not to bother anyone, just to show its effects.

Show the effects of what exactly? Your lack of a rational argument?

[SUBMAN1]

Atheism is the root of all the worlds problems simply because it lacks moral boundaries.
Yeah, right... :roll:

You like that? Good! Don't take it litterally since its overly simplistic (and meant to be that way), but it goes along the lines of the arguments Von Capo is throwing out there to show how idiotic they are.

-S

[Gizzmoe]

While atheism isn't the root of all world problems, it's a major potential to cause many because the bottom line is anything goes, as it's assumed that humans and paramecium are both nothing more that biological beings, with no other purpose than to survive, reproduce and die, at the most. Life's red lines can constantly be raised or lowered to suit the whims of the moment or the continuous degradation of moral behavior.
That´s just a worst-case scenario, things that theoretically could happen. And I agree that it could. Speaking of myself, I´m an atheist for like 20 years now and the older I get the higher my moral values become it seems.

[VON_CAPO]

I´m an atheist for like 20 years now and the older I get the higher my moral values become it seems.I agree.
Atheists have the higher level of moral values than any other group I had found. :yep::yep::yep::yep::yep:

And this is not joke. :|\\

[Gizzmoe]

I agree.
Atheists have the higher level of moral values than any other group I had found. :yep::yep::yep::yep::yep:

And this is not joke. :|\\

Aww, shut up! :)

[SUBMAN1]

I´m an atheist for like 20 years now and the older I get the higher my moral values become it seems.I agree.
Atheists have the higher level of moral values than any other group I had found. :yep::yep::yep::yep::yep:

Quite the contrary. You two represent the minority in that regard. I only wish I could have helped a friend or two over the years, but their ever declining lack of morals is evident of any athiest society. Its is rather sad, but there is nothing I can do for them since their choice is their choice.

-S

[August]

Speaking of myself, I´m an atheist for like 20 years now and the older I get the higher my moral values become it seems.

Moral values tend to increase in most people as they become older. I think it has to do with having a greater number of life experiences to illustrate their value.

[Dogsbd]

Muslims are killing "infidels" and each other by the 10's and 100's of thousands, Muslims threaten ALL who do not live as they say with death, Europe is burning at the hand of rioting Muslims......

...but Christianity is the "threat" you people worry about?

I must have slipped into the twilight zone.

[VON_CAPO]

Muslims are killing "infidels" and each other by the 10's and 100's of thousands, Muslims threaten ALL who do not live as they say with death, Europe is burning at the hand of rioting Muslims......

...but Christianity is the "threat" you people worry about?

I must have slipped into the twilight zone. Do not worry, there will be a special chapter for them.

[Ducimus]

Regardless on what side of the religion debates a person maybe, it is wrong to force your ideals upon others. The problem is it's a vicious circle. It starts somewhere. What a wonderful situation if the religious right would just accept other peoples views. Then the otherside would lay off the other, and we woudlnt have silly bickering in this country over stupid crap like a marble statue of a book in a courthouse.

Im reminded of a poltical cartoon a saw awhile ago, but it stuck in my mind because of the irony. It depected a protest outside of the whitehouse by the religious right, holding signs saying, "USA is a christian nation!". In the foreground you had two characters. One, was one of the picketers holding above said sign, yelling at the second character who was wearing a T shirt that said, "non christian" the caption was, a speech from the pricketing protester, it said, "You feel oppressed?! Go found your own nation!"

The irony being, religous oppression is what loaded up alot of people in a sailing ship called the "Mayflower" which landed at Plymouth rock. Which begs the question, in terms of religion, has our nation become that which our forebearers fled from?

[VON_CAPO]

It depected a protest outside of the whitehouse by the religious right, holding signs saying, "USA is a christian nation!". In the foreground you had two characters. One, was one of the picketers holding above said sign, yelling at the second character who was wearing a T shirt that said, "non christian" the caption was, a speech from the pricketing protester, it said, "You feel oppressed?! Go found your own nation!" Yeap, I know what you are talking about.
And I fear that situations like those will escalate.
In 10 or 15 years, atheists could be obligated to use a big "A" on our clothing. :shifty:

[The Noob]

I am getting quite angry if i read SUBMAN's or Avon's opinions about atheism. I think Religion is the root for very much evil. See the wars that still happend today, just because of that *PC Censored* religion.

(Sorry, but you add fuel to my rant fire. The clice of the Patriotic Right-Wing Christian extremist seems to apply to more people than i originally thought. And that makes me angry.)

I think that Atheists can do very evil things, wich could be excused by a "lack of moral muck". Well, Christians have also done many evil things. It's not Christanity or Atheism. It's not morale. It's the evil that is in all of us. Many people "go bonkers" wich causes that evil to take the upper hand.

[Gizzmoe]

I think that Atheists can do very evil things, wich could be excused by a "lack of moral muck". Well, Christians have also done many evil things. It's not Christanity or Atheism. It's not morale. It's the evil that is in all of us. Many people "go bonkers" wich causes that evil to take the upper hand.

That´s very true.

[August]

Which begs the question, in terms of religion, has our nation become that which our forebearers fled from?

I don't think so. The Pilgrims fled from religious persecution, meaning that all religions besides the official Church of England were banned and/or ostracised.

The problem in the US is the exact opposite. It lies with a group of people who for whatever reason want to twist freedom of religion into freedom from all religion which regardless of whether you think that's a good thing or not is not the same.

[VON_CAPO]

The problem in the US is the exact opposite. It lies with a group of people who for whatever reason want to twist freedom of religion into freedom from all religion which regardless of whether you think that's a good thing or not is not the same.That is curious, I thought the point is a overwhelming majority trying to impose their way of life on the rest. ;)

A way of life dictated by superstition; if you like to live in that way, you have my endorsement, of course. ;)

But when your group is permanently trying to bend the law for their own sake... :nope::nope::nope:

[August]

That is curious, I thought the point is a overwhelming majority trying to impose their way of life on the rest. ;)

Feel free to work this Christmas if you feel that way. That is if you do work.

[SUBMAN1]

The problem in the US is the exact opposite. It lies with a group of people who for whatever reason want to twist freedom of religion into freedom from all religion which regardless of whether you think that's a good thing or not is not the same.That is curious, I thought the point is a overwhelming majority trying to impose their way of life on the rest. ;)

A way of life dictated by superstition; if you like to live in that way, you have my endorsement, of course. ;)

But when your group is permanently trying to bend the law for their own sake... :nope::nope::nope:

No one is imposing anything on you as far as I can tell. At least if you live in the US that is. No one is going to do anything to make you believe anything you don't want to in this country, so why are you trying to impose your views on everyone else? That is the hypocritical bit on this thread! You my friend are very much a hypocrite.

But to each his own - If you read the book of Revelation and supporting text and truly understand it after it has predicted every major world power to date with accuracy, from Alexander the Great to the US of A, predicted the very wars going on right now, to even the wall that Isreal is even building, and still disbeleive it, then I feel sorry for you, but that is your choice. Enough said on the subject.

-S

[VON_CAPO]

Talking about hypocrisy: :hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm:

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8356/2n121218jhy191215q9eqnw6.jpg (http://imageshack.us) http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3821/13h26oi2mv1420c111474ky7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[SUBMAN1]

Talking about hypocrisy: :hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm:

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8356/2n121218jhy191215q9eqnw6.jpg (http://imageshack.us) http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3821/13h26oi2mv1420c111474ky7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

THis is your opinion only and your opinion is being pushed much farther than what you post here. Again you are being a hipocrite. Keep it up.

Need I remind you how many times it goes the other way? More often than not you might say, so I say that your Atheism is being pushed much harder than CHristians are pushing back, so who is the one pushing their agenda harder? Who are the ones that want the word go removed from anything and everything? You are creating this cartoon yourself because you are pushing your agenda on Christians and the 'only' reason you are starting to hear from them is that they are slowly starting to push back.

Welcome to your self made mess. THis is an Athiest agenda in the making, not a Christian one.

-S

[kiwi_2005]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c387/mischazion/Isreal/omniuosax8.jpg

[The Avon Lady]

That is curious, I thought the point is a overwhelming majority trying to impose their way of life on the rest. ;)
Feel free to work this Christmas if you feel that way.
I do. :p

Just saying. :roll:

:p

[The Avon Lady]

Talking about hypocrisy
Can you point it out?

BTW, I notice you really a lot on comic books for your journey through life. Good luck! :up:

[The Avon Lady]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c387/mischazion/Isreal/omniuosax8.jpg
This was posted already at the start of your thread. Are you posting it because you agree or disagree with it? :hmm:

[Iceman]

Regardless on what side of the religion debates a person maybe, it is wrong to force your ideals upon others. The problem is it's a vicious circle. It starts somewhere. What a wonderful situation if the religious right would just accept other peoples views. Then the otherside would lay off the other, and we woudlnt have silly bickering in this country over stupid crap like a marble statue of a book in a courthouse.


The door here swings both ways in regards to teaching only science in schools....To me a bunch of egg heads peering through a telescope into deep space trying to figure it all out and under microscopes look to me like people fumbling around in the dark.Which science freely admits..."Gaps"...well what is the difference in Intelligent Design being taught in school?...there is no difference.Both appear to have gaps yet each side will cling to it's side as gospel.My Bible teaches me there is nothing new under the sun....no thing new...only things new to "Us"....hum same as science...if sceince has nothing to fear it should welcome and explore the possibilites of something other than a "Big Bang" just happening and here we all are.I have enjoyed science all my life and astronmy but when astronmy turns to astrology I pre-fer to take the road of God and faith and not the tides and alignment of stars dictating my future....peace. :)

The true followers of truth wether in sceince or God never do force themselves on anyone.We.."Christians" understand the "I must see for myself" before I believe in something...a guy named Thomas went thru the same thing.

[Gizzmoe]

Which science freely admits..."Gaps"...well what is the difference in Intelligent Design being taught in school?...

Public schools are there for everyone, not only devout Christians. On those schools are also Buddhists, Hindus, Atheist and so on. Why should they be tought things that have absolutely no relevance for them?

[August]

Which science freely admits..."Gaps"...well what is the difference in Intelligent Design being taught in school?...
Public schools are there for everyone, not only devout Christians. On those schools are also Buddhists, Hindus, Atheist and so on. Why should they be tought things that have absolutely no relevance for them?

Here's where we can agree. ID should be tought in Philosophy class not Science Class.

[Iceman]

Which science freely admits..."Gaps"...well what is the difference in Intelligent Design being taught in school?...

Public schools are there for everyone, not only devout Christians. On those schools are also Buddhists, Hindus, Atheist and so on. Why should they be tought things that have absolutely no relevance for them?

You make my point eXactly...WHO..YOU GIZZMOE?...Decided that SCIENCE is the HOLY GRAIL of Knowledge....do you understand now dang lol...it goes both ways damn.Believe me
I understand the fear here...um...uh where do we put it....Philisophy?Science?Drama?....the point is to have students have exposure to ALL aspects of Life on our planet and let them decide...

[Yahoshua]

Hmm, try this for a dark age (watch ALL the videos). It's about the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Bank among other things.

Here (http://www.poodlecrap.com/Hateliars/HL_Video1.asp?Part=0)

[The Avon Lady]

Back on topic: The_Indignity_of_Atheism (http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/The Indignity of Atheism.asp).

Please read carefully before drawing incorrect conclusions. :yep:

[Gizzmoe]

You make my point eXactly...WHO..YOU GIZZMOE?...Decided that SCIENCE is the HOLY GRAIL of Knowledge....do you understand now dang lol...it goes both ways damn.Believe me
Science exists much longer than the Bible.

the point is to have students have exposure to ALL aspects of Life on our planet and let them decide...
Is that really what you want? I think that you want them to be primarily exposed to the aspects of Christian thinking. I bet that many devout Christians wouldn´t like to send their kids to schools where there also teach them, without any prejudice, the aspects of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or what the Aborigines think about how the world was created.

[The Avon Lady]

You make my point eXactly...WHO..YOU GIZZMOE?...Decided that SCIENCE is the HOLY GRAIL of Knowledge....do you understand now dang lol...it goes both ways damn.Believe me
Science exists much longer than Bible.
"He <G-d> looked in the Torah and created the universe." - Zohar, Teruma 161b

Just stating otherwise. :|\\

[Gizzmoe]

"He <G-d> looked in the Torah and created the universe." - Zohar, Teruma 161b

Just stating otherwise. :|\\

Damn, you win. Again! :nope: :88) ;)

[The Avon Lady]

"He <G-d> looked in the Torah and created the universe." - Zohar, Teruma 161b

Just stating otherwise. :|\\
Damn, you win. Again! :nope: :88) ;)
But even without that quote, if G-d does exist, then science is the study of the physical world created by G-d.

The real question is which came first - G-d or science?

But no one's stopping you from reviewing the Science of God (http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Gerald-Schroeder/dp/076790303X/sr=1-1/qid=1162367697/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-7477104-1675365?ie=UTF8&s=books) for a contrary opinion to yours.

Speaking of the book's author, I found this which discusses your previous argument about not teaching ID or similar in public schools: God in School (http://www.aish.com/rabbi/ATR_browse.asp?s=science%20of%20god&f=tqak&offset=1).

[Gizzmoe]

But even without that quote, if G-d does exist, then science is the study of the physical world created by G-d.

The real question is which came first - G-d or science?
That´s a question I don´t ask myself, because, for me, gods don´t exist.

[The Avon Lady]

But even without that quote, if G-d does exist, then science is the study of the physical world created by G-d.

The real question is which came first - G-d or science?
That´s a question I don´t ask myself, because, for me, gods don´t exist.
And your proof?

[Gizzmoe]

That´s a question I don´t ask myself, because, for me, gods don´t exist.
And your proof?
Sorry, but I won´t get into that discussion, it would lead to absolutely nothing.

[Gizzmoe]

Sorry, but I won´t get into that discussion, it would lead to absolutely nothing.
*sigh* Ok, I will. :)

[Warning, contains some generalisations! ;)]

Of course I can´t prove that there aren´t any gods. But the problem with religions is, there are so many of them. Some don´t have gods, some are monotheistic, some polytheistic. Like you said earlier, most of them contradict each other. There´s even huge disagreement between the different Christian branches. But of course everyone thinks that their religion is right.

As a true believer you have to dismiss other religions. You can´t be a devout Christian and nevertheless accept that Jews don´t see Jesus as their personal saviour. You can´t be Buddhist but yet somehow accept the idea that Christans and Jews say that one god created the Earth and everything. All you can do as a true believer is to tolerate and respect other religions, but you can never accept their ideas.

In conclusion, it´s impossible to find out which religion is right. Maybe even all of them are wrong. But they can´t all be right. So at one point I simply decided that the only logical thing for me to do is to dismiss all religions. I respect people who are religious, but that´s about it.

[The Avon Lady]

In conclusion, it´s impossible to find out which religion is right. Maybe even all of them are wrong. But they can´t all be right. So at one point I simply decided that the only logical thing for me to do is to dismiss all religions. I respect them, but that´s about it.
Fair enough.

But..............................

:p

One day, when you have an hour or so to meditate without interruption, don't. :smug:

Instead, look around you, look out the window or even - gasp - step outside. Marvel at the sky, the earth, the animals, the plants (even a single blade of grass - think about the photosynthesis), the materials we employ to produce huts or office towers, computers, cars, fridges, clothing, food and what not. Then think about the same and different varieties located in the heart of Africa or Asia or South America or Japan. Pop any oceanographic nature documentary into your DVD player and take in the ecosystems and the myriads of species spread throughout the world. Next sit down and be inspired (again, enough National Geographic DVDs around) by your senses, sight, smell, hearing, taste, and fell. Search the web for Hubble telescope images. Think of the complexity of your digestive, cardiovascular, muscle, nervous or skeletal systems.

Now go to a major Museum, view a Rembrandt, Renoir, Gauguin or similar and try to honestly convince yourself that any single one of these paintings - just 1, even in another museum elsewhere in the world - was produced by a random tossing of different oil colors onto the canvas by the artist - or anyone else, for that matter. (I especially did not give examples of artists such as Jackson Pollock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock) for reasons of irony :p ). Just one single classic artwork.

Enjoy the museum. Take your time.

[Takeda Shingen]

I like Jackson Pollock. I also like Milton Babbitt. Ultra-serialism is very enlightening. Anyway, back to your rapidly-circularizing discussion.

[Wim Libaers]

Of course, paintings and buildings are designed - by humans. The flaw in the argument is that, because man-made complex items are designed, anything that is complex must have been designed.




The door here swings both ways in regards to teaching only science in schools....To me a bunch of egg heads peering through a telescope into deep space trying to figure it all out and under microscopes look to me like people fumbling around in the dark.Which science freely admits..."Gaps"...well what is the difference in Intelligent Design being taught in school?...there is no difference.Both appear to have gaps yet each side will cling to it's side as gospel.

The difference is science's side is the side of observable phenomena, and it changes as required by the available evidence. Science adapts to evidence with the goal of being as correct as possible.

The other side merely wants science to be subordinate to their interpretation of a specific book (which book depends on the religion, e.g. muslims don't like this branch of science either). In order to appear scientific to those with limited experience with science, and to attack theories that do not fit into their gospel, they resort to underhanded practices like citing real scientific articles, misquoting, and misrepresenting the evidence (based on the mostly correct assumption that readers will take the reference to a scientific article as proof of correctness, without checking if it was quoted correctly, or examining the article's claims). One of their standard techniques is to take some scientific controversy about a minor detail of some theory, and then use that to insinuate an entire field of science is invalid. Examples were given earlier in this thread. It should not surprise anyone that the scientific community does not appreciate such liars.

[The Avon Lady]

Of course, paintings and buildings are designed - by humans.
In fact, try appreciating what's physically, psycologically and materially needed just to do that. In fact, just to pick up the brush. In fact, just for the artist to think about picking up the brush.
The flaw in the argument is that, because man-made complex items are designed, anything that is complex must have been designed.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck........................

Or, as the saying goes, you can't see the forest for the trees?

The billions of varying components that make up the universe, down to the design of the atom and even it's sub-atomic parts? And then we're to look at these billions of varying components, all of them super complex and consistantly abiding by predictable laws, and imagine that they all came about from a series of billions of booboos and oopsies, beginning from some magical particle that appeared out of nowhere at the beginning of time, which itself begs for an explanation?!

I think the Hopi Indian myths posted here yesterday are more plausable. :yep:

[The Noob]

The billions of varying components that make up the universe, down to the design of the atom and even it's sub-atomic parts? And then we're to look at these billions of varying components, all of them super complex and consistantly abiding by predictable laws, and imagine that they all came about from a series of billions of booboos and oopsies, beginning from some magical particle that appeared out of nowhere at the beginning of time, which itself begs for an explanation?!

What sounds insane to you is the throuth for me, and millions of atheists. And scientists of course. :D

Avon Lady, you are so damn conservative, you could be send back in time to 1850 and no one would be suspicious. :lol:

I think the Hopi Indian myths posted here yesterday are more plausable. :yep:
Thats the problem. Universe is not plausable. We will never understand it.

[The Avon Lady]

The billions of varying components that make up the universe, down to the design of the atom and even it's sub-atomic parts? And then we're to look at these billions of varying components, all of them super complex and consistantly abiding by predictable laws, and imagine that they all came about from a series of billions of booboos and oopsies, beginning from some magical particle that appeared out of nowhere at the beginning of time, which itself begs for an explanation?!
What sounds insane to you is the throuth for me
I assume you meant "truth".

No problem. I can understand people thinking irrationally. Now there's the rub. :lol:
and millions of atheists. And scientists of course. :D
Yes. You all B-E-L-I-E-V-E.
Avon Lady, you are so damn conservative
So?:hmm:
I think the Hopi Indian myths posted here yesterday are more plausable. :yep:
Thats the problem. Universe is not plausable. We will never understand it.[/quote]
That's your excuse.

[Fish]

@AL, what do you think you should believe when born in a Christian/Islamic or Atheist familie, and not in a Judean family?

[Gizzmoe]

The flaw in the argument is that, because man-made complex items are designed, anything that is complex must have been designed. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck........................

Or, as the saying goes, you can't see the forest for the trees?
You were raised with the idea that your god has created everything. They teached you that and now you believe it. But you need to understand that there are hundreds of other religions that don´t share your view of the world.

Generally speaking, you are not in the position to tell anyone that only your believe system is right.

[The Avon Lady]

@AL, what do you think you should believe when born in a Christian/Islamic or Atheist familie, and not in a Judean family?
Regarding Christianity and Islam, both religions believe in a creator of the universe. Differences in the detail? It's academic!

As for atheists, that's why we're discussing this here - to debate the issues.

("Judean family"? Surely you meant "Jewish family.")

[Gizzmoe]

You are evading his question! :) What if you were raised as a Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist...

[The Avon Lady]

The flaw in the argument is that, because man-made complex items are designed, anything that is complex must have been designed. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck........................

Or, as the saying goes, you can't see the forest for the trees?
You were raised with the idea that your god has created everything. They teached you that and now you believe it. But you need to understand that there are hundreds of other religions that don´t share your view of the world.

Generally speaking, you are not in the position to tell anyone that only your believe system is right.
I'm not insisting on it here at all. Read what I wrote. Not a particular word about Judaism at all in the post you're quoting. All I said was look around you and ponder.

[Gizzmoe]

I'm not insisting on it here at all.
I know, that´s why I wrote "Generally speaking".

[The Avon Lady]

You are evading his question! :) What if you were raised as a Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist...
Do all of these religions believe in some form of divine creator? Then my universal point is still applicable.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm not insisting on it here at all.
I know, that´s why I wrote "Generally speaking".
Generally speaking, I am entitled to point out much in our daily lives that is taken for granted. Again, this is a universal idea, not denominational.

[The Noob]

and millions of atheists. And scientists of course. :D Yes. You all B-E-L-I-E-V-E.
Jup. And you all B-E-L-I-E-V-E too.

Thats the problem. Universe is not plausable. We will never understand it.That's your excuse.
And what's your excuse, Avon? "But it's written in that book". Thats even a worse excuse then mine.

[The Avon Lady]

and millions of atheists. And scientists of course. :D Yes. You all B-E-L-I-E-V-E.
Jup. And you all B-E-L-I-E-V-E too.
But I never argued otherwise, though I did specify the logical and rational foundations to my belief versus the illogical and irrational side to your beliefs, in my posts today.
Thats the problem. Universe is not plausable. We will never understand it.That's your excuse.
And what's your excuse, Avon? "But it's written in that book". Thats even a worse excuse then mine.
You've obviously not read or understood my posts from yesterday, as well as today's.

[SUBMAN1]

Why is this thread still going? Its pathetic.

[The Avon Lady]

Why is this thread still going? Its pathetic.
On the contrary! I think it's improved with age.

Now, instead of posting childish comic strips and photoshopped bible pics with surgeon general warnings pasted on the cover, we're actually discussing the issues. Well, for the most part.

[SUBMAN1]

Why is this thread still going? Its pathetic. On the contrary! I think it's improved with age.

Now, instead of posting childish comic strips and photoshopped bible pics with surgeon general warnings pasted on the cover, we're actually discussing the issues. Well, for the most part.

You mean there has been improvement? Like real talk? I figured this was lost a long time ago.

-S

[VON_CAPO]

Why is this thread still going? Its pathetic. Well, you & Co. may leave. :lol:

EDIT: Or are you suggesting to lock the thread? ;)

[VON_CAPO]

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6672/532612256101417f26nj22wrk7.jpg (http://imageshack.us) http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6997/l19ki147924wz2515eu14se9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Would need Jung to be introduced? :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

There goes the intelligent conversation! Sorry I contradicted you, SubMan.

Any Christians here care to bother refuting the latest doodle of the day?

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/7451/fleein3.gif

[SUBMAN1]

There goes the intelligent conversation! Sorry I contradicted you, SubMan.

Any Christians here care to bother refuting the latest doodle of the day?

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/7451/fleein3.gif

Thought so. It is pretty funny that he can't say anything for himself relies on cartoons to do his talking. I had a bit of a chuckle over that!

-S

[Gizzmoe]

Any Christians here care to bother refuting the latest doodle of the day?

Well, I´m just an atheist, but even I find that dumb.

[VON_CAPO]

Any Christians here care to bother refuting the latest doodle of the day?
Well, I´m just an atheist, but even I find that dumb. I do not think so, these cartoons have a very specific message.

Where is written that I have to engage in a argument with hostile persons to express ideas? :hmm::hmm::hmm:

[Gizzmoe]

Any Christians here care to bother refuting the latest doodle of the day?
Well, I´m just an atheist, but even I find that dumb. I do not think so, these cartoons have a very specific message.
Yeah, the message is "Atheists are dumb *******s."

I mean WTF!?!? "You lose your power to choose and to evaluate your life and make your own decisions." That´s totally cheap and ridiculous. There are way too many stereotypes.

[VON_CAPO]

Any Christians here care to bother refuting the latest doodle of the day?
Well, I´m just an atheist, but even I find that dumb. I do not think so, these cartoons have a very specific message.
Yeah, the message is "Atheists are dumb *******s."

I mean WTF!?!? "You lose your power to choose and to evaluate your life and make your own decision." That´s totally cheap and ridiculous. That is your consideration, not mine.
EDIT: The cartoon's message is valid beyond any personal consideration.

[VON_CAPO]

Gizzmoe, you were getting into a pointless (IMHO) argument with the other team.

They are not going to change their minds, and you either.

I am posting "ideas", some people can take them as valid and others not.

The core here is to show them and disseminate them.

[sonar732]

"You lose your power to choose and to evaluate your life and make your own decisions."

I make my own decisions based on how I was raised and how I live everyday. The fact of the matter is that right from wrong isn't based on someone trying to control me. It's based on my beliefs. Whether you believe that they were "forced down my throat" as many; not all, athesis state, is your opinion. It's a mixture of education and religious study...which coincides for me. Your cheap shots regarding the Old Testiment are hilarious as you aren't taking the New Testiment's salvation into consideration.

Where is written that I have to engage in a argument with hostile persons to express ideas?

You are the one in this instance of pasting cartoons validfying your stance...not us. Your deminer is even getting other athesis surprised by your comments.

[August]

Gizzmoe, you were getting into a pointless (IMHO) argument with the other team.

They are not going to change their minds, and you either.

I am posting "ideas", some people can take them as valid and others not.

The core here is to show them and disseminate them.
So now that you have and everyone has rejected them, what now?

[Fish]

@AL, what do you think you should believe when born in a Christian/Islamic or Atheist familie, and not in a Judean family?
Regarding Christianity and Islam, both religions believe in a creator of the universe. Differences in the detail? It's academic!

As for atheists, that's why we're discussing this here - to debate the issues.

("Judean family"? Surely you meant "Jewish family.")

Ahh yes Jewish, sorry.
What I meant was that the religion you have the religion from your parents is, it's not chosen by you.
Only very few switch to a otehr religion, mostly because of marriage.
Kids are brainwashed, and I know because I ones was a Cristian (Catholic).
Fear was one of them, hell and purgatory.

[SUBMAN1]

@AL, what do you think you should believe when born in a Christian/Islamic or Atheist familie, and not in a Judean family? Regarding Christianity and Islam, both religions believe in a creator of the universe. Differences in the detail? It's academic!

As for atheists, that's why we're discussing this here - to debate the issues.

("Judean family"? Surely you meant "Jewish family.")
Ahh yes Jewish, sorry.
What I meant was that the religion you have the religion from your parents is, it's not chosen by you.
Only very few switch to a otehr religion, mostly because of marriage.
Kids are brainwashed, and I know because I ones was a Cristian (Catholic).
Fear was one of them, hell and purgatory.

I even question some of the Catholic ways of life, so I can see why. An example is worshipping the virgin Mary. I don't quite get this idea when the bible specifically forbids it.

-S

[Iceman]

Where's Skybird when you need him? :) I personally find the cartoons funny. They are a means to express oneself so be it. Big questions to be sure...on the point of teaching ID in schools and your comments to me Gizzmoe in that you'd "Bet" that I would not want my own children to seek and know they're own truths is very insulting to me frankly.You apperantly have been totaly tuned out to the past discussions of this board regarding Christianity...where even Skybird acknowledged that "Christianity" is based entirely upon "Free Will"...it is a choice....a free choice to pick up your cross deny ones "Self" and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.We are taught and acknowledge the fact "MOST" will not choose this path...Friends...family,...most.I acknowledge my own children may not choose the path I am on and accept this...the best I can do is try to show " ALL " of the known paths that are out there and let them decide....There is an order to a Christians life...Christ,others...self is last always.My wife knows I put God before her and my children.This is where trust, hope, and faith come into play.

The flesh and spirit are enimity with each other and will always be so...I discuss not to try to change the flesh of people, this is born into sin, I speak to the spirit of each man here which cries to cross over to life eternal.

Flesh does not go to heaven or hell the spirit does...I speak to the spirit...

With this last passage I will dis-continue in this discussion as it bears no fruit to strive with flesh.

John 3

1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


Ya either get it or ya don't.

[sonar732]

I have attended multiple denominations since I was a kid. Grew up in the Lutheran Missouri Synod (http://www.lcms.org/), attended a Church of the Nazareene (http://www.nazarene.org/) for about six months, then Assemblies of God (http://ag.org/top/). I've recently moved over to the Baptist (http://www.garbc.org/).

[waste gate]

The theocratic State. This is happening in America right now!

I think this was the original post. Take my word for it, compared to what was happening in the early 1980's in the US and what any of the youngsters think they are seeing now is nothing. The United States was founded and continues to be a country which alows all views to be heard and allows all faiths (science included) to practice regardless of how popular or unpopular the may be.

Let this go.

[Fish]

@AL, what do you think you should believe when born in a Christian/Islamic or Atheist familie, and not in a Judean family? Regarding Christianity and Islam, both religions believe in a creator of the universe. Differences in the detail? It's academic!

As for atheists, that's why we're discussing this here - to debate the issues.

("Judean family"? Surely you meant "Jewish family.")
Ahh yes Jewish, sorry.
What I meant was that the religion you have the religion from your parents is, it's not chosen by you.
Only very few switch to a otehr religion, mostly because of marriage.
Kids are brainwashed, and I know because I ones was a Cristian (Catholic).
Fear was one of them, hell and purgatory.

I even question some of the Catholic ways of life, so I can see why. An example is worshipping the virgin Mary. I don't quite get this idea when the bible specifically forbids it.

-S

That's because your not Catholic by birth. :smug:

[Wim Libaers]

Of course, paintings and buildings are designed - by humans. In fact, try appreciating what's physically, psycologically and materially needed just to do that. In fact, just to pick up the brush. In fact, just for the artist to think about picking up the brush.
The flaw in the argument is that, because man-made complex items are designed, anything that is complex must have been designed. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck........................

Or, as the saying goes, you can't see the forest for the trees?
Oh yes, try to look at it in a diferent way. If the only thing that makes noise that you've ever seen is a duck, then, well, if something makes noise it must be a duck.

A car? A duck. An aircraft? A duck. A piano? That's a duck too.

So, if all complex things you see were the product of intelligent design (not referring to the creationism version specifically, also to human acts), or you were always told that they were, it's not surprising that you can't think of other ways to get there.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail."

The billions of varying components that make up the universe, down to the design of the atom and even it's sub-atomic parts? And then we're to look at these billions of varying components, all of them super complex and consistantly abiding by predictable laws, and imagine that they all came about from a series of billions of booboos and oopsies, beginning from some magical particle that appeared out of nowhere at the beginning of time, which itself begs for an explanation?!

I think the Hopi Indian myths posted here yesterday are more plausable. :yep:
The idea of relatively simple molecules self-organizing into larger ordered systems is not so strange to me, because I often work with such systems and it's a pretty big research topic worldwide. Of course, none of my samples have started walking around and laying eggs, but I don't run my experiments for a billion years ;)


Gizzmoe, you were getting into a pointless (IMHO) argument with the other team.

They are not going to change their minds, and you either.

I am posting "ideas", some people can take them as valid and others not.

The core here is to show them and disseminate them.
I've already learned that Christians have circular faces while atheists' are polygonal. Just hope someone doesn't start posting Chick tracts :lol:

Edit: no, that was a mistake, front views are circular for the atheist girl too, but that appears to be a less common position for her.

[SUBMAN1]

@AL, what do you think you should believe when born in a Christian/Islamic or Atheist familie, and not in a Judean family? Regarding Christianity and Islam, both religions believe in a creator of the universe. Differences in the detail? It's academic!

As for atheists, that's why we're discussing this here - to debate the issues.

("Judean family"? Surely you meant "Jewish family.")
Ahh yes Jewish, sorry.
What I meant was that the religion you have the religion from your parents is, it's not chosen by you.
Only very few switch to a otehr religion, mostly because of marriage.
Kids are brainwashed, and I know because I ones was a Cristian (Catholic).
Fear was one of them, hell and purgatory.
I even question some of the Catholic ways of life, so I can see why. An example is worshipping the virgin Mary. I don't quite get this idea when the bible specifically forbids it.

-S
That's because your not Catholic by birth. :smug:

Yeah yeah.

And to counteract your claim - maybe I am wrong here, but don't they read the same book as the rest of Christianity? I think they did last time I checked!

-S

[Yahoshua]

About the duck.....

One thing my insturctors have tole me is to never take anything for granted.

"Just because it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and sits in the water like a duck, it could be a Goose in disguise."


(The above was a feeble attempt at levity).

[Fish]

@AL, what do you think you should believe when born in a Christian/Islamic or Atheist familie, and not in a Judean family? Regarding Christianity and Islam, both religions believe in a creator of the universe. Differences in the detail? It's academic!

As for atheists, that's why we're discussing this here - to debate the issues.

("Judean family"? Surely you meant "Jewish family.")
Ahh yes Jewish, sorry.
What I meant was that the religion you have the religion from your parents is, it's not chosen by you.
Only very few switch to a otehr religion, mostly because of marriage.
Kids are brainwashed, and I know because I ones was a Cristian (Catholic).
Fear was one of them, hell and purgatory.
I even question some of the Catholic ways of life, so I can see why. An example is worshipping the virgin Mary. I don't quite get this idea when the bible specifically forbids it.

-S
That's because your not Catholic by birth. :smug:

Yeah yeah.

And to counteract your claim - maybe I am wrong here, but don't they read the same book as the rest of Christianity? I think they did last time I checked!

-S

You could be right, last time I checked............ must be over 40 year now? :hmm:

[VON_CAPO]

Religion, Sexual Repression, Guilt and Hypocrisy
By Alexander Shaumyan (http://www.authorsden.com/visit/author.asp?AuthorID=22136)

From: ---> http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=22136&id=24506

""" I was reading different comments on Ronald Hull's poem Hypocrisy (http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewPoetry.asp?id=170453&AuthorID=3918), related to the latest sex scandal involving Dan Foley.
Of course, the Christian answer is that man is weak and will always fail. If we can't trust ourselves as humanity, whom can we trust?
The Christian answer is that only God can be trusted.
The Christian solution to the problem is to print more Bibles and build more churches and to instill more guilt and fear into young children.
The problem that I have with Christianity is that it views man as fundamentally sinful and in need of supernatural guidance.
The basic teachings of Christianity repress natural human impulses.
We've all been angry, jealous or lustful at one time or another.
What matters is how we handled these impulses.
It's the repression of these impulses that creates a religious hypocrite.
A married man who denies having lustful fantasies about attractive women is forced to become a hypocrite.
The moral crusaders become what they fight by repressing their own sexual impulses.
Thus we see many Catholic priests, who by denying their natural sexual impulses, become child molesters. """

""" Religions create extremism that leads to ignorance and intolerance.
The dogmas of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have held us back for centuries from believing in ourselves and what we are truly capable of.
If we become free from religion, then we become responsible for ourselves and for the society that we create in our lifetime. """

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ---> http://www.smartsociety.org/guiltandsex.html

""" In some macabre way, guilt is something that many people seem to need.
It’s as though to be completely guilt free is somehow not nice!
Religious leaders exploit this weakness to its maximum.
Inducing guilt in their followers keeps them servile and controllable.
Some religions are worse than others, but they all do it to some degree.
Roman Catholics declare that everyone is born in sin – that puts you in your place from day one!
Then they create a lot of rules that they know will be broken.
That creates the guilt.
But then, through the confessional, the “sinners” can be forgiven so they can start all over again! """

""" All religions use sex to induce guilt."""

[sonar732]

So, you are saying an athesis lives w/o guilt. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Guilt isn't an emotion solely for religious people.

"internal corrective mechanism that signals a masculine to feel more towards his domain. analogs: inferiority, shame"

"remorse caused by feeling responsible for some offence"

You are becoming a hipocrite yourself if you fail to understand guilt is a human emotion that keeps even the athesis from doing something wrong.

[VON_CAPO]

So, you are saying an athesis lives w/o guilt. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Not me, but you.
Where do you read such thing? :|\\

[sonar732]

So, you are saying an athesis lives w/o guilt. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: Not me, but you.
Where do you read such thing? :|\\
You couldn't be farther from the truth. I live with guilt for things I do quite a bit, whether it be on how I handle discipline with my children or argueing with my wife over something stupid. By saying that I live w/o guilt disproves your own posting earlier as guilt "...keeps them servile and controllable."

EDIT: Also... "It's the repression of these impulses that creates a religious hypocrite." I couldn't agree with you more on this note. There are good and bad apples with anything today. You have made quite a few links to hypocrites like Jimmy Swagger, Jim Baker, etc. Just yesterday, I saw JS on the tv doing evangelism and I also was laughing at seeing him back on tv. Or who can forget the comments made by Mr. 700 club himself regarding multiple issues of Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, Hugo Chavez, etc. A few friends of mine even tried to bad mouth New Orleans while forgetting that their family members go to a gamblin' boat. So, to place one set of religious people with another is not taking the majority into consideration.

[VON_CAPO]

So, you are saying an athesis lives w/o guilt. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: Not me, but you.
Where do you read such thing? :|\\
You couldn't be farther from the truth. I live with guilt for things I do quite a bit, whether it be on how I handle discipline with my children or argueing with my wife over something stupid. By saying that I live w/o guilt disproves your own posting earlier as guilt "...keeps them servile and controllable."Let's put the things at the right place.

1- First, you interpreted the articule posted by me as: "religious people feel guilt, but not atheists"
This is incorrect, human psyche is common to religious and atheists, so both can feel guilt. (it depends of the particular neurosis of each person).

2- I think you interpreted the sentence "Not me, but you" as I was implying (in a tacit way) the idea of atheists people does not feel guilt; and you remarked it literally.
Again, this is incorrect, probably the sentence "Not me, but you" can be interpretated in that way; but the meaning that I wanted to express was:
"I did not say that, you are mistakenly saying it".
Well, it is just a semantic misunderstood, I think.

3- The sentence quoted by you "...keeps them servile and controllable." refers to a church context; I mean, relation among the pastor or minister with the followers.
And it has nothing to do with your family life.

[VON_CAPO]

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/1779/23j211212ackgvt26k239yb8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[SUBMAN1]

Is there anyone even reading these rediculous cartoons? I'm just kind of curious. I didn't bother to read half way through the first one since its purely stereotypical hypocritcal hate garbage. To me that shows how Atheist want to push their values on society more than even the most religious radicals want to push their values on them! Islamic radicals be forwarned! You don't have anything on them since they outclass you any day of the week for pushing agendas!

Its interesting to note this little tidbit now isn't it?

-S

[VON_CAPO]

Is there anyone even reading these rediculous cartoons? I'm just kind of curious. I didn't bother to read half way through the first one since its purely stereotypical hypocritcal hate garbage.
Sure it is stereotypical, so stereotypical as reality.
These dialogues happen every day in uncountable homes.

[August]

Is there anyone even reading these rediculous cartoons? I'm just kind of curious. I didn't bother to read half way through the first one since its purely stereotypical hypocritcal hate garbage. Sure it is stereotypical, so stereotypical as reality.
These dialogues happen every day in uncountable homes.

Uncountable because 0 adds up to nothing.

[SUBMAN1]

Is there anyone even reading these rediculous cartoons? I'm just kind of curious. I didn't bother to read half way through the first one since its purely stereotypical hypocritcal hate garbage. Sure it is stereotypical, so stereotypical as reality.
These dialogues happen every day in uncountable homes.
I think you're mistaken - I haven't seen it for it to be that prevalent! ANd that stil doesn't change the fact that this athiest agenda pushing far outpaces any religous radical or religious moderate agenda. Its nuts what I see here. Its like they have nothing better to do with all their energy than pick some group to blame all their problems on. Get a life already! To beleive in these people that write this garbage and to follow them is to be seriously messed up in the head. I guess people like this who have nothing else in life need something to cling to.

-S

[VON_CAPO]

I think you & Co. are so pissed about the cartoons because you intimately recognize that is a real and sometimes weird face of your faith. :|\\

[SUBMAN1]

I think you & Co. are so pissed about the cartoons because you intimately recognize that is a real and sometimes weird face of your faith. :|\\

I wouldn't call it pissed at all. Bored with it might be a better word since non of them reflect reality, but instead reflect of one sided hate towards a group of people.

[August]

I think you're mistaken - I haven't seen it for it to be that prevalent! ANd that stil doesn't change the fact that this athiest agenda pushing far outpaces any religous radical or religious moderate agenda. Its nuts what I see here. Its like they have nothing better to do with all their energy than pick some group to blame all their problems on. Get a life already! To beleive in these people that write this garbage and to follow them is to be seriously messed up in the head. I guess people like this who have nothing else in life need something to cling to.

-S

Spot on Subman.

[VON_CAPO]

I wouldn't call it pissed at all. Bored with it might be a better word since non of them reflect reality, but instead reflect of one sided hate towards a group of people.
I gotta go, tomorrow 10:00 ET.

[August]

Anyone else get the impression that this von Capo guy is trying way to hard?

[SUBMAN1]

Anyone else get the impression that this von Capo guy is trying way to hard?
It almost feels built up in him over many years. It is probably healthy for him to get this out though.

-S

[August]

Anyone else get the impression that this von Capo guy is trying way to hard?
It almost feels built up in him over many years. It is probably healthy for him to get this out though.

-S

Maybe. I just hope that when he finally realizes that no one is taking his words as "gospel" he doesn't go off the deep end and do something bad. After all it isn't like he has the threat of eternal damnation to stop him.

[Takeda Shingen]

I think you & Co. are so pissed about the cartoons because you intimately recognize that is a real and sometimes weird face of your faith. :|\\

This is quickly running it's course. It may be wisest and most beneficial for everyone involved if you now stopped attacking said faith.

Dan san,

Tak (Dangling and jingling the playground keys)