Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atheism is the world's most intolerant religion and never tolerates me expressing my thoughts.
It's truly amazing how one person can be so wrong. Where do you come up with this stuff?
I would love to hear all about how atheism's intolerance. Where do you see it? On what scale? How often?
Mostly, atheists simply want religion to adhere to the US Constitution by not promoting religion. Are you irritated that teacher-led prayer in school has been banned? Are you angry that some idiot tried to have religious symbols in a cemetary removed? Yeah, there are some atheists who take it too far, but more times than not, it is one lunatic without any support.
But atheists aren't flying planes into buildings or blowing themselves up in the middle of crowded cafes. Atheists are not the ones blowing themselves to smithereens or waging incessent wars over minor points of atheist doctrine.
Atheists aren't the ones spending untold millions of dollars in an effort to keep gays in the closet nor are atheists sponsoring unconstitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Atheists are not the ones trying to stomp all over a woman's reproductive rights or dooming millions of Africans to die of Aids by refusing to hand out contraception. Atheists aren't the ones scapegoating others by claiming gays and liberals and feminists are responsible for natural disasters and acts of terror. Atheists are not the ones in non-stop campaigns trying to get certain books banned from public libraries all over the nation (anyone read Harry Potter?). I don't see atheists dancing around bonfires of books and music like Nazis during the height of their power. Nor do I see atheists sending petition after petition to the networks demanding that they remove any television show that features a Christian or references Christian beliefs (unlike Christian groups who wanted the show "House" removed because the lead character was an atheist).
I mean, seriously, I could go on and on and on and on with this list, detailing the thousands of instances of religious intolerance that occurs each and every single day somewhere in the world.
And yet you have the temerity to not only call atheism a "religion," you also make the unreasonable and unfounded claim that atheism is the most intolerant? Really?
I suppose you never heard about the dozen or so girls who died by fire in Saudi Arabia? Yeah, the Saudi morality police refused to allow a bunch of girls to exit a burning building because ... get this ... they didn't have the proper religious head covering on. The morality police even tackled rescue workers to the ground in an effort to prevent the firefighters from rescuing the girls.
And yet you'll still sit here and claim atheism is the most intolerant "religion"? You know, sometimes all one can really do when faced with this kind of silliness is to just shake one's head and walk away.
Quote:
But the more important point is that democracy is only possible with a patriarchal god. When the patriarchal god falls, democracy soon follows. So anyone who supports democracy should support a patriarchal god.
This really doesn't make any sense. What does democracy have to do with worshiping a god?
Quote:
Since I think roughly 98% of humanity doesn't deserve to be alive, I am not particularly opposed to slaughter.
Folks, I give you ... religion! See how it corrupts the mind and turns morality upside down?
Quote:
No they aren't, and the reason is because they lack the humility needed to take other points of view seriously.
\
I see. So because a person rejects the existence of a god, that must mean that an atheist cannot take ANY point of view seriously ... about anything or any other subject. Thanks for the stereotype, pal.
Here it is yet again, folks! Proof of Intransigence!
Quote:
Originally Posted by fschmidt
Rifleman notes: First you say this... "I want these taught along with religion. And the more conflicting theories taught for each subject, the better. I want kids to learn how to think critically."
But then you ruin it all by saying this, which is so clearly biased...
If you had been brought up an atheist, you would have never had to exercise critical thought and would have turned out like the other atheists on this forum.
Only people who understand more than one point of view have any chance of thinking critically.
rflmn comments: So how do you think the near-100% majority of atheists came to their careful conclusion, huh? By utilizing a perspective they had never previously been provided with? Or by critical thinking they developed on their own?
Does your brand of so-called Critical Christian Thinking () always return a Christian perspective? Yes or No? (PS: Now watch here for the non-response, folks...)
I'll tell you: most all of us were indeed first and foremost initially Christians by the child endangerment trick of brainwashing without ANY alternatives EVER discussed in Zah EssEss (Sunday School to so many insistent Christians acolytes, pure-on Nazi indoctrination to me...)
The resulting and obvious conclusion to become an atheist and enjoy the guilt-free remainder of one's productive life, all to the detriment of organized Christianity, did indeed require self-discipline, education, voluminous reading, plus comparative philosophies on the options, and keeping up to date on the latest results and proven facts that the SM systematically provides to the world.
Meaning... unabashed but productive and open-minded critical thinking over several years of careful thinking on the alleged and obviously supernatural and illogical and improbable School of Godly Magic. Versus the other possible option(s). Pure and simple and undeniable. (See Webster's for the definition of that last underlined word before you return to rant on..).
The options for anyone who really wants to compare and then learn?:
First we openly take all that option one has to offer, such as: that God wrinkled His Holy Nose and it all appeared in one lone week, all of it, including every species that ever lived or is living now.
Then you toss in some of the other v. bizarre and ridiculous ideas such as a literal interpretation of a total globally inundating flood, for well over 18 months, that in fact would have eliminated not only all terrestrial life, but also everything once alive in the sea (...you who have no biological or organo-chemical education forget that a salt-water environment is significantly different than a fresh water one and that most all marine and fresh-water fish species require a very specific salinity in order for their tissues to not explode or to desiccate even though they are flushed out into a marine water environment.).
All of the biblically illiterate ideas of an actual fludd idea is also so easily disproven by that ugly little fact that no other culture [like, for instance, the Chinese historians and nearby East Indians, plus other Asians and even the plains indians of N. America...] on the planet noticed being flooded out.... Hmmm.. so what does ghat imply, pray tell us all, including you, fschmidt?
Or, we can take a look at option two, where we carefully and conservatively hypothesis, then set up a few rational test regimes, repeat for confirmation, and complete that process.
This approach clearly shows, via the fossil record and it's related position in the easily read geological column, plus the countable annual sedimentary displays and the now-very-accurate dating of artifacts, adding in the now but only recently available DNA genome and lineage tracking, and so on. All placed together on the Evidence Table. Then the real fun begins, eh, fs?
Under that relentless scrutiny, all starting about 150 years ago and persisting to this day, we can eliminate the lost sides of any argument or honest debate. That's exactly what honest debate achieves: one side is always a loser. Always and indisputably. The debate's honest judges have to make that decision, now don't they?.
You really can't stand even thinking about or accepting the obvious winnah here, that clearly being option two so you continue with your necessary ad hominems aimed at simple, honest atheism and it's proponents, and so you stubbornly fight back by casting aspersions and demons upon atheism and referencing it as a "religion" of non-critical thinkers (now there's a good one!) as if such ugly accusations, disrespectful behavior and typical fundy Christian behavior will magically save your God's perspective.
What it actually does accomplish however is to provide readers, those who may be on the debate's fence right now, with a stunningly clear example of "How To Lose a Debate by Being Silly, Ill-Educated, Uncommunicative and Frightened"!
Sorry: impossible to save it now. The losing side has, well... lost!
Here it is yet again, folks! Proof of Intransigence!
Quote:
Originally Posted by fschmidt
Rifleman notes: First you say this... "I want these taught along with religion. And the more conflicting theories taught for each subject, the better. I want kids to learn how to think critically."
But then you ruin it all by saying this, which is so clearly biased...
If you had been brought up an atheist, you would have never had to exercise critical thought and would have turned out like the other atheists on this forum.
Only people who understand more than one point of view have any chance of thinking critically.
rflmn comments: So how do you think the near-100% majority of atheists came to their careful conclusion, huh? By utilizing a perspective they had never previously been provided with? Or by critical thinking they developed on their own?
Does your brand of so-called Critical Christian Thinking () always return a Christian perspective? Yes or No? (PS: Now watch here for the non-response, folks...)
I'll tell you: most all of us were indeed first and foremost initially Christians by the child endangerment trick of brainwashing without ANY alternatives EVER discussed in Zah EssEss (Sunday School to you, pure-on Nazi indoctrination to me...)
That required critical thinking over several years of careful critical thinking on the alleged and obviously supernatural and illogical/improbable school of Godly Magic. Pure and simple.
You take option one, that God wrinkled His Holy Nose and it all appeared in one lone week, all of it, including every species that ever lived or is living now. Thenyou toss in the bizarre and ridiculous idea of a total globally inundating flood that would have eliminated not only all terrestrial life, but also everything once alive in the sea (...you who have no biological or organo-chemical education forget that a salt-water environment is significantly different than a fresh water one...). All of the fludd idea being so easily disproven by that ugly little fact that no other culture on the planet noticed being flooded out...
Or, we can take a look at option two, where we carefully and conservatively hypothesis, then set up a few rational test regimes, repeat for confirmation, and complete that process.
This approach shows, via the fossil record and it's related position in the easily read geological column, plus the obvious laying down of a predictable annual sedimentary display and the now-very-accurate dating of artifacts, plus the now available DNA genome and lineage tracking, and so on.
Under that relentless scrutiny, all starting about 150 years ago and persisting to this day, we can eliminate the lost sides of any argument or honest debate. Thats' what honest debate produces: one side must be a loser. Always and indisputably.
You really can't stand that option so you continue with your necessary ad hominems of simple, honest atheism, casting aspersions and demons upon it and referencing it as a "religion" of non-critical thinkers (now there's a good one!) as if such ugly accusations, disrespectful behavior and typical fundy Christian behavior will magically save your God's perspective.
What it actually does accomplish however is to provide readers who may be on the debate's fence with a stunningly clear example of "How To Lose a Debate by Being Silly, Uncommunicative and Frightened"!
Sorry: impossible to save it now. The losing side has, well... LOST!
If you had been brought up an atheist, you would have never had to exercise critical thought and would have turned out like the other atheists on this forum.
Hmm ... what I see here in this one statement is, well, more projection going on than in all of the movie theaters in New York.
I'd really like to know how many Christian parents actually teach their children the tenats of more than one religion. How many do you suppose take their children to not just church but also synagogues, mosques, temples, Budhist shrines, etc. In fact, I doubt Christian parents even explain other Christian denominations to their children.
Instead, children are brainwashed from an early age to believe what the parents believe - with no deviation. It takes exposure to the rest of the world before there is any real chance of de-Christianizing someone brought up Christian. I suppose this is why a lot of Christians want to home school their kids, to limit exposure to opposing ideas.
However, the majority never leave their belief comfort zone and continue believing in the religion that was pounded into them from an early age.
"Give me a child until the age of seven and I will give you the man," the Jesuits say. What do you think that motto means? Think about it.
Let's face the facts. A child brought up to be atheist will be bombarded by Christianity even before he becomes an adult. Christianity is everywhere in this country. It's on our money, in our Pledge, referenced constantly on television, it's in our monuments, our courtrooms, and there's a church on every other corner. It would be nigh impossible for someone brought up atheistic to NOT question his own beliefs, to NOT wonder what this Christianity is all about and to find out why so many people believe in it.
But ... a child brought up Christian can go many years, perhaps even decades, without having to deal with atheism. You don't see atheism everywhere nor is atheism a major influence on our society. Even if this Christian child meets an atheist, that non-believer will be one person who is not backed up by organizations, money, a biased society, or the majority opinion. That atheist will be an anomaly, in some cases shunned by his peers, a real outcast. There would be no strong reason for a Christian child to question Christianity, and the roars against atheism are so negative that it is unlikely the believer will ever look at atheism objectively.
Christian vs. Scientific Methodology Vetting explained, simply and inarguably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skoro
Creation is a topic for Sunday school, not a science class.
Agreed, skoro. But actually, even Evolution vs. Cretionism is not technically an element of a science class curriculum, if we're being honest here. (I know I am, btw...)
Science class should generally restrict itself, at least initially, to training in critical thinking, overlaid with an established process we have named The Scientific Method, which insists on a first statement of The Hypothesis, a Methods & Materials section, and a further section where all the observed, sorted and analyzed data is posted. Observations and Data.
Then a Conclusions with Explanation section, and finally, an Abstract once the winnah is determined.
Then, if publication is possibly desired, it all goes off to a panel of recognized experts in that field, who go at your pet project and write-up both intensely and rigorously, in order to seek out any possible flaws in any and all those key elements, often lingering on the Observations and Data as observed & documented (to see if that critically important Data has NOT been, (oh-oooohhh...cooked?), as we pubs-seeking scientists have all seen from [infrequent..] time to time.
Then, perhaps as a good example of what The SM can provide, our hypothetical, well-educated, ardent and honest class science class teacher, usually and/or necessarily an accomplished Master's level science graduate, can readily provide such suitable examples as the famous case for and against, and via simple point-form comparisons, say, Creationism and Evolution! QED, as usual!
Or he/she can always provide and happily debate, for example, the obvious proofs for a spherical earth vs. flat, or how we discovered the basic biochemistry of our bodies, or of who and how DNA was discovered (See: Watson & Crick... not your "one paragraph in Genesis covers all" bible... Good Lord!) or how Darwin's original general hypothesis was so very insightful, despite that he had NO IDEA about the mutations and elements of DNA and RNA... Boy... what if he'd known and fully understood those elements, huh guys?
Pass to The Stagnant Christian Genesis Model, unchanged for well over ±5600 years, despite it being so very easily debunked!
So impressive is the modern vetted version of our origins that so many quivering fundamentalist Christian claimers need to demonize this obviously brilliant man, simply because darwin had enlightened the inarguable processes and outcomes of Evolution, through observable adaptive radiation and subsequent trial and error in-situ tests.
Again, the odor of fear is undeniable!
Our SM is hardly the routing for any Christian claims, now is it? Fact is, not one tiny iota of those fantasy biblical claims has EVER been thoroughly vetted, except, (<ahem>) by the mostly always open-minded Science Cohort.
When we find that an hypothesis under test, (any hypothesis for that matter, including those extended to the latest HD LED TV technology or tooth whitening claims...) really falls flat, we dutifully explain why (as in: there's no such thing as a magic castle or Godly Wink-a-Nod intervention...) and place it in the dump heap of debunked and failed fantasy hypotheses.
And then, as with any honest & rational thinkers, we default to the well-reasoned alternative winner. Seems like the logical way to go, non?
Why not? Why stick with a fallen idea? Do some actually like to be so very wrong? Why indeed?
Seems some do indeed prefer the implausible and even the impossible, in order to protect their life-long spiritual mandates! And perhaps please their spouses or ministers?
Quite a model to live by: preferential illusions and gross technical illiteracy is openly preferred to fact and predictability?
All the answers readily at hand in one old black-bound book with very simplified and unthinking answers, with all the necessary details, and in conveniently very short form (usually a biblical paragraph of so will suffice to explain the entire Creation of all life on Earth and [potentially...] the Universe, plus the age of the earth, and so on. How convenient, eh?
I'm a creationist, but this argument about teaching creation alongside of evolution doesn't make sense et all. (I purposely wrote et all :-) What is there to teach about creation? That is what theories concerning creation have been proven, to teach on? The only thing you will be able to teach concerning creation, is the belief on the Biblical God. That of course, is simply teaching someone's faith to people who aren't of the faith. God doesn't want that, He doesn't want to force people to trust His word. If He was going to do that, there would be no need for any preacher or anything we Christians do. God would simply make us trust Him. (Thus eliminating free will)
So unless we actually have tested theories concerning creation, there is nothing to teach. For Christians out there who honestly argue creation should be taught, let's honestly ask ourselves what we are arguing. When you argue that creation should be taught in school, you are arguing for people to be forced fed Christianity. God doesn't want that number one. Number two, you open up the doors for Christians to be forced fed other beliefs. If you see being forced fed the beliefs of Buddhism as wrong, why are you trying to force feed your beliefs on Buddhists? We are called to be examples of God's love for the world. When people see us, through reason, they can make their own choice if what we say is the truth. So far however, it's reasonable for people to doubt us, but that will change. All in all, don't force feed your beliefs.
Uhhh maybe that the idea that things weren't created at all, even as pre-life, doesn't even make any sense? This is simple logical fallacy.
X was never created (complete denial of creationism)
therefore X exists.
versus
X was made to exist (any creationism or evolutionism that uses some logic)
therefore X exists.
Uhhhhh, yea. That's literally how stupid the argument against creation is.
Now, aside from that, could we have a perfectly viable theory of evolution? Sure. But learn to think rationally first.
That's literally how stupid the argument against creation is.
Now, aside from that, could we have a perfectly viable theory of evolution? Sure. But learn to think rationally first.
Huh? "Stupid Arguments AGAINST Creationism!" you say? Fact is, the successful arguments against a Godly Creation event is in all the truly implausible and easily debunked fantasies it tolerates. It's also regularly explained in just a few extremely illiterate biblical paragraphs, authored by what is a bit of a reality-checked stretch, even for a devoutist, don't yah think, bulma?
The problem that sets biblical Creationism on it's veritable ear-hole is that it absolutely depends on such things as a very young [as in"≈ 5000 yr old...) earth, and that God created all the species that "are", but in one fell swoop. Obviously all the sea-bottom fossils, and mud-encrusted dino footprints and other later fossils, and the stuff we find in coal seams, and the DNA lineages we now find in well-preserved frozen mammoth and mastodon remains...
If Creationism relied instead on even a half-assed proposition, such as a God-designed and driven Evolution, then it might stand a chance of being at least an unlikely possibility.
But to insist, without any evidence nor rationale, that it all happened one week with a Godly nose wriggle, and that only the animals and plants that are here today were all created simultaneously? And/or that no others either ever evolved or are evolving now? or that Evolution demands toe tags on everything we bring to the well-stacked Evidence Table? Or that we don't have a magical Missing Link (long since abandoned now that we have proof of an ongoing and continuous process of endless Evolution with any Transitional being but a transient snapshot of that in humans and everything else out there...
Again, I'll quote you here: "That's literally how stupid the argument against creation is."
Q: just how many examples of transitional forms in the fossil and inarguable DNA record do you insist on before the truth is damaging your stubborn mindset?
What you see above is was what I easily found in about 1 minute. What if I took, say, 6 months to find all the archeological and anthropomorphic examples and all the published research?
How would you then defend your stubborn determinations and claims, all absent any actual research or education your part? Do you see how hopeless such inane defiance is in the face of demonstrable facts?
_________________________________________
What a stupendously errant load of fiction you present and in a hostile and combative form to boot! And you claim not even well thought out. And so, why do the uninformed apologists cling to this story, even as we have evidence of a lot older and far more complex home world & evolving species set, plus all those species that have already died off (Literally millions, btw.
"Say now Martha, where are those danged dinos that are so very absent from the bible even mentioned?"
Oh yeah, I forgot: the T-rexs and even far more massive and herding Apatosaurs were out playing with the village kids! Yet when we find hominid evidence in ancient camp sites (like in a weather-protected cave...) such as cooking pottery, burned animal bones in ancient fire-pits, odd transitional and no longer extant vegetation species in the stomachs of perfectly preserved mastodons, and so on and so forth.
But not EVER a single dino fossil or nor remnant fragments amongst all those global archeological and anthropomorphic remains, huh? (esp with so many of those dino fossils being easily ignored...)
Meantime, the massively illiterate biblical record errors are happily incorporated into some really LDS-like inspired fantasies, or are otherwise wished away with nary a thought to probabilities. Like that the Chinese didn't notice they had all been killed by that fludd, and so on. (Noting that we questioning and curious types NEVER get a straight answer to that little problemo...)
That's literally how stupid the argument against creation is.
Now, aside from that, could we have a perfectly viable theory of evolution? Sure. But learn to think rationally first.
Huh? "Stupid Arguments AGAINST Creationism!" you say? Fact is, the successful arguments against a Godly Creation event are in all the truly implausible and easily debunked fantasies it so easily tolerates. It's also enchantingly explained away in just a few extremely illiterate biblical paragraphs, authored by within what is obviously a bit of a reality-checked stretch, even for a devoutist, don't yah think, bulma?
The problem that sets biblical Creationism on it's veritable ear-hole is that it absolutely depends on such things as a very young [as in"≈ 5000 yr old...) earth, and that God created all the species that "are" now here, but also in one fell week-long swoop.
Then it just as obviously ignores all the sea-bottom fossils, and mud-encrusted dino footprints and other later fossils, and the stuff we find in ancient coal seams, and the DNA lineages we now find in well-preserved frozen mammoth and mastodon remains...
If Creationism relied instead on even a wildly half-assed proposition, such as a God-designed and driven Evolution, then it might stand a chance of being at least an unlikely possibility.
But to insist, without any evidence nor rationale, that it all happened one week with a Godly nose wriggle, and that only the animals and plants that are here today were all created simultaneously?
And/or that no other species either ever evolved or are evolving now? Or that Evolution theory seemingly demands toe-tags on everything we bring to the well-stacked Evidence Table?
Or that we don't have a magical Missing Link (NOTE: long since abandoned now that we have proof of an ongoing and continuous process of endless and stepless Evolution with any so-called "Transitiona"l being but a transient snapshot of that process in apes, our direct proto-lemur cousins, humans and also everything else out there...
Again, I'll quote you here: "That's literally how stupid the argument against creation is."
Q: just how many examples of transitional forms in both the fossil and it's inarguable DNA record do you insist on before the truth is lethally damaging to your stubborn mindset?
What you see above is was what I easily found in about 1 minute. What if I took, say, 6 months to find all the archeological and anthropomorphic examples and all the published research?
How would you then defend your stubborn determinations and claims, all absent any actual research or education your part? Do you see how hopeless such inane defiance is in the face of demonstrable facts?
_________________________________________
What a stupendously errant load of fiction you present, and in a hostile and combative form to boot! What you claim is not even well thought out. And so, why do uninformed apologists cling to this story, even as we have evidence of a lot older and far more complex home world & evolving species set, plus all those species that have already died off (Literally millions, btw.)
"Say now Martha old girl... where are those danged contemporary human-dino remains that are so very absent from the biblical story?"
Oh yeah, I forgot: the T-rexs and even far more massive and herding Apatosaurs were out playing with the village kids! Yet when we find hominid evidence in ancient camp sites (like in a weather-protected cave...) such as cooking pottery, burned animal bones in ancient fire-pits, odd transitional and no longer extant vegetation species in the stomachs of perfectly preserved mastodons, and so on and so forth , we do not EVER find contemporaneously placed dino remains. Hmmm.
Again, we do not EVER find a single dino fossil or nor remnant cooked bone fragments amongst all those global archeological and anthropomorphic remains, huh? (esp. with those dino fossils being not sp easily ignored...)
Meantime, all the massively illiterate biblical record errors are happily incorporated into some really LDS-like inspired fantasies, or are otherwise wished away with nary a thought to probabilities. Like that the Chinese didn't notice they had all been killed by that fludd, and so on. (Noting that we questioning and curious types NEVER get a straight answer to that little problemo...)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here it is yet again, folks! Proof of Intransigence!
Short form...
