A Side-Effect of Religious Stupidity
Budikka666
and trying every underhand method they can dig up to LIE to children
as in this example of their behavior over the so-called "academic
freedom" bill in Florida (at www.pandasthumb.org:
http://tinyurl.com/4ahxf2
But one all-too-often overlooked effect of their determined ignorance
and stupidity is children dying as these two blogs address:
www.scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey
http://tinyurl.com/4et2m9
and
www.scienceblogs.com/insolence/
http://tinyurl.com/3l4ezk
If you let yourself be dragged down by ignorance of science and blind
belief in antiquated mythology, you will pay the price, sooner or
later. If it's not you, it'll be your children.
Budikka
adman
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:91ac4b59-f8e9-4594...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
We're already paying the price. As science replaces the one true God in our
society we feel its effects. Crime, murder, robbery, disrespect, love of
money, hatred towards one another, and a whole host poor behavior are direct
result from God been replaced by scientific nonsense and junk science.
Science for the most part wants to better man kind. However true science has
been hijacked and perverted into a demonstrable field of speculation, gases,
and outright lies to fool the public into believing man has the answers.
It's really THAT simple.
Ken
> Creationism is bad enough as it is, abusing hard-working scientists
> and trying every underhand method they can dig up to LIE to children
> as in this example of their behavior over the so-called "academic
>
> But one all-too-often overlooked effect of their determined ignorance
> and stupidity is children dying as these two blogs address:www.scienceblogs.com/drugmonkeyhttp://tinyurl.com/4et2m9
>
> If you let yourself be dragged down by ignorance of science and blind
> belief in antiquated mythology, you will pay the price, sooner or
> later. If it's not you, it'll be your children.
>
> Budikka
The more one becomes educated, the less the find the need for
imaginary sky fairys and pseudo-science to explain how the world and
the universe really operates.
But then some people are just born terminal dumb asses.
I could name several in here
Cory Albrecht
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:91ac4b59-f8e9-4594...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> | Creationism is bad enough as it is, abusing hard-working scientists
> | and trying every underhand method they can dig up to LIE to children
> | as in this example of their behavior over the so-called "academic
> | freedom" bill in Florida (at www.pandasthumb.org:
> | http://tinyurl.com/4ahxf2
> |
> | But one all-too-often overlooked effect of their determined ignorance
> | and stupidity is children dying as these two blogs address:
> | www.scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey
> | http://tinyurl.com/4et2m9
> | and
> | www.scienceblogs.com/insolence/
> | http://tinyurl.com/3l4ezk
> |
> | If you let yourself be dragged down by ignorance of science and blind
> | belief in antiquated mythology, you will pay the price, sooner or
> | later. If it's not you, it'll be your children.
> |
> | Budikka
>
> We're already paying the price. As science replaces the one true God in our
> society we feel its effects. Crime, murder, robbery, disrespect, love of
> money, hatred towards one another, and a whole host poor behavior are direct
> result from God been replaced by scientific nonsense and junk science.
And of course non of that stuff existed 2500 years ago when the Jewish
scriptures were being written down and collated from oral traditions
and science did not yet exist. No, not at all.
> Science for the most part wants to better man kind. However true science has
> been hijacked and perverted into a demonstrable field of speculation, gases,
> and outright lies to fool the public into believing man has the answers.
Funny how you've never been able to prove and of those lies by the
science side, while on the other hand the demonstrable lies by the
creationist/ID crow keep rolling in.
IlBe...@gmail.com
> Creationism is bad enough as it is, abusing hard-working scientists
> and trying every underhand method they can dig up to LIE to children
> as in this example of their behavior over the so-called "academic
>
> But one all-too-often overlooked effect of their determined ignorance
> and stupidity is children dying as these two blogs address:www.scienceblogs.com/drugmonkeyhttp://tinyurl.com/4et2m9
>
> If you let yourself be dragged down by ignorance of science and blind
> belief in antiquated mythology, you will pay the price, sooner or
> later. If it's not you, it'll be your children.
>
> Budikka
REPLY: Pond Scum to 206 bone Human Being is desperate psuedo-science.
Its a last ditch THEORY from a 19th century Scientist who himself
profusely apologized for his incomplete work. Here is what we have
fron REAL Science :
1. We have a Universe that came into being
out of nothing when it didnt have to .2. We have a Universe with over
250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
called Earth.3. LIfe that has been observed to arise only from
existing life and not arise spontaneously.4. LIfe consists of
thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable
specified complexity as found in DNA information/messages (and is
therefore more than just the non living chemicals it contains).5. Life
which changes cyclically and only within a limited range.6. Life which
cannot be built or modified gradually (IE: irreduciblecomplexity).7.
Life that leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that appear
suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.
... An honest look at the facts suggests creation, not
macroevolution,is true. And it suggests a highly intelligent personal
Creator has been at work , not 'Natural Causes' which imply no
purpose, no ultimate meaning, nor infinite worth or dignity toward
Humankind ; yet intrinsic self worth, dignity, and meaning is
portrayed in the daily life of an atheist , when in reality if atheism
is true, there should be no confirmation thereof.
Atheism is a bankrupt FAITH ; faith in the sheer impossible of ever
occuring for the sake of not wanting a personal Creator to exist so
one can live as he/she likes with no ultimate moral culpability. This
is the psychology behind atheism and always has been.
Charles & Mambo Duckman
> We're already paying the price. As science replaces the one true God in our
> society we feel its effects. Crime, murder, robbery, disrespect, love of
> money, hatred towards one another, and a whole host poor behavior are direct
> result from God been replaced by scientific nonsense and junk science.
Can you possibly be any more stupid? Huh? Give it a try.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
Free Lunch
>
>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:91ac4b59-f8e9-4594...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>| Creationism is bad enough as it is, abusing hard-working scientists
>| and trying every underhand method they can dig up to LIE to children
>| as in this example of their behavior over the so-called "academic
>| freedom" bill in Florida (at www.pandasthumb.org:
>| http://tinyurl.com/4ahxf2
>|
>| But one all-too-often overlooked effect of their determined ignorance
>| and stupidity is children dying as these two blogs address:
>| www.scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey
>| http://tinyurl.com/4et2m9
>| and
>| www.scienceblogs.com/insolence/
>| http://tinyurl.com/3l4ezk
>|
>| If you let yourself be dragged down by ignorance of science and blind
>| belief in antiquated mythology, you will pay the price, sooner or
>| later. If it's not you, it'll be your children.
>|
>| Budikka
>
>We're already paying the price. As science replaces the one true God in our
>society we feel its effects.
Science did no such thing. Science discovered how the world works. It's
not my fault that you adhere to a religion that denies reality and
attacks the discoveries of scientist. Now, in a last pathetic gasp of
desperation you blame knowledge for the ills that have always been with
us.
> Crime, murder, robbery, disrespect, love of
>money, hatred towards one another, and a whole host poor behavior are direct
>result from God been replaced by scientific nonsense and junk science.
What was the excuse for these thing when the iron hand of religion held
sway in the West? You don't seriously think that things are worse today.
If you do, you are every bit as ignorant of history as you are of
science.
>Science for the most part wants to better man kind.
The purpose of science is to learn. Bettering mankind may or may not be
a result, but it is not a direct result.
> However true science has
>been hijacked and perverted into a demonstrable field of speculation, gases,
>and outright lies to fool the public into believing man has the answers.
Your lies about science are clear and undisputable. You wallow in your
evil view of the world. You celebrate your worship of a hateful god. You
mock knowledge.
>It's really THAT simple.
You are really that foolish.
Sockie
"adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in message
news:yHpUj.143$C8...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> We're already paying the price. As science replaces the one true God in
> our
> society we feel its effects.
What type of science would you like us to do away with in favor of your god?
Medical science? Biology? Man's origins? Disease? What?
Crime, murder, robbery, disrespect, love of
> money, hatred towards one another, and a whole host poor behavior are
> direct
> result from God been replaced by scientific nonsense and junk science.
Really? You mean you never read your bible and discovered all those things
occurred since written history began? What makes you think they only
started with Darwin in the 1800s?
> Science for the most part wants to better man kind. However true science
> has
> been hijacked and perverted into a demonstrable field of speculation,
> gases,
> and outright lies to fool the public into believing man has the answers.
Man does have the answers. Another friend was cured of cancer no thanks to
your "god." Thanks to science!
> It's really THAT simple.
I'm sure should you develop cancer or some other serious illness you will
see no Dr and receive no treatment. You will wait for god to cure you and
save some Ins Co. a lot of money - it's that simple.
>
>
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Sockie
<IlBe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4daef7c-ef04-4553...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Atheism is a bankrupt FAITH ; faith in the sheer impossible of ever
occuring for the sake of not wanting a personal Creator to exist so
one can live as he/she likes with no ultimate moral culpability. This
is the psychology behind atheism and always has been.
So you're saying all believers are not living "as they like?" How then are
they living and why do they bother to keep living? What are atheists doing
that upsets believers so?
Ron Peterson
> So you're saying all believers are not living "as they like?" How then are
> they living and why do they bother to keep living? What are atheists doing
> that upsets believers so?
Atheists are showing that the moral codes of the religious are
destructive of humanity. Believers only want control of others to do
their bidding.
--
Ron
rogue
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:91ac4b59-f8e9-4594...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> | Creationism is bad enough as it is, abusing hard-working scientists
> | and trying every underhand method they can dig up to LIE to children
> | as in this example of their behavior over the so-called "academic
> | freedom" bill in Florida (atwww.pandasthumb.org:
> |http://tinyurl.com/4ahxf2
> |
> | But one all-too-often overlooked effect of their determined ignorance
> | and stupidity is children dying as these two blogs address:
> |www.scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey
> |http://tinyurl.com/4et2m9
> | and
> |www.scienceblogs.com/insolence/
> |http://tinyurl.com/3l4ezk
> |
> | If you let yourself be dragged down by ignorance of science and blind
> | belief in antiquated mythology, you will pay the price, sooner or
> | later. If it's not you, it'll be your children.
> |
> | Budikka
>
> We're already paying the price. As science replaces the one true God in our
> society we feel its effects.
JERRY
Yes,. like better medicines, longer lifespans, better quality of life
(compare our quality of life to countries that are more religious,
like Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan and... well, you get the
idea.), better educations. Those are some of the effects.
> adman
> Crime, murder, robbery, disrespect, love of
> money, hatred towards one another, and a whole host poor behavior are direct
> result from God been replaced by scientific nonsense and junk science.
JERRY
No, actually we had those back when we were a more religious country
than we are now. The US went through a religious renaissance in the
1950's. That's when "under God" was added to the pledge of
allegiance, and when "In God We Trust" was added to all the money.
That was also when we had laws forbidding inter-racial marriages, we
had lynchings, more hatred based on class and race than we do now. Oh
yes, and we had crime, we had deaths from back-alley abortions, we had
all of that stuff. You really should learn some history if you think
you want to talk about it in any manner.
And, you need to learn some science before you start talking about
"scientific nonsense and junk science." That same "junk science" that
gave you evolution is also the same junk science that gave you
electricity, computers, cars, electric light, penicillin, etc.
> adman
> Science for the most part wants to better man kind. However true science has
> been hijacked and perverted into a demonstrable field of speculation, gases,
> and outright lies to fool the public into believing man has the answers.
>
> It's really THAT simple.
JERRY
No, it's simpler than that. People who are too stupid to learn
science because they want to cling to superstition (such as yourself)
are trying to badmouth the people who do REAL science simply because
they don't understand it.
Now, if you grow a brain, learn some science and figure out how to
argue it logically, you can get a bit of respect in your discussions.
Sirius
> We're already paying the price. As science replaces the one true God in
> our society we feel its effects. Crime, murder, robbery, disrespect,
> love of money, hatred towards one another, and a whole host poor
> behavior are direct result from God been replaced by scientific nonsense
> and junk science. Science for the most part wants to better man kind.
This supposed positive effect of religious belief on crime rate as been
proven false. Crime rate is much higher in religious America than in
Europe where religion is a private matter, and where, all over the XX.
religious belief receded and simultaneously violent crime rate collapsed.
So there is no know correlation between religious belief and morality.
> However true science has been hijacked and perverted into a demonstrable
> field of speculation, gases, and outright lies to fool the public into
> believing man has the answers.
There is no such thing as true science or true belief. There are
scientific theories each with a validity domain and none explaining all
and everything. And, even if it does not pleases you some of thoses
theories give strong evidence that some religious beliefs cannot be true.
If your religion compels you to believe something that is strongly
suspected to be false, don't rant, THINK.
johac
<91ac4b59-f8e9-4594...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
Perhaps those who choose to remain ignorant deserve what they get, but
certainly not their kids.
>
> Budikka
--
John #1782
Ben Goren
> adman wrote:
>
>> We're already paying the price. As science replaces the one
>> true God in our society we feel its effects. Crime, murder,
>> robbery, disrespect, love of money, hatred towards one another,
>> and a whole host poor behavior are direct result from God been
>> replaced by scientific nonsense and junk science. Science for
>> the most part wants to better man kind.
>
> This supposed positive effect of religious belief on crime rate
> as been proven false. Crime rate is much higher in religious
> America than in Europe where religion is a private matter,
> and where, all over the XX. religious belief receded and
> simultaneously violent crime rate collapsed. So there is no
> know correlation between religious belief and morality.
But you contradict yourself. There *IS* a correlation between
religiosity and morality and violent crime. A very, very strong
one, perhaps stronger than any other indicator.
It's just that the correlation is inverse rather than direct, as
the godbots claim.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
curtjester1
> In article
> <91ac4b59-f8e9-4594-9920-74b4a0351...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Creationism is bad enough as it is, abusing hard-working scientists
> > and trying every underhand method they can dig up to LIE to children
> > as in this example of their behavior over the so-called "academic
> > freedom" bill in Florida (atwww.pandasthumb.org:
> >http://tinyurl.com/4ahxf2
>
> > But one all-too-often overlooked effect of their determined ignorance
> > and stupidity is children dying as these two blogs address:
> >www.scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey
> >http://tinyurl.com/4et2m9
> > and
> >www.scienceblogs.com/insolence/
> >http://tinyurl.com/3l4ezk
>
> > If you let yourself be dragged down by ignorance of science and blind
> > belief in antiquated mythology, you will pay the price, sooner or
> > later. If it's not you, it'll be your children.
>
> Perhaps those who choose to remain ignorant deserve what they get, but
> certainly not their kids.
>
there is no god, and tell them that life arose from the rocks? I
think he is proposing a Waco, I mean Wackos for the masses!
CJ
> > Budikka
>
> --
> John #1782- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
James Beck
149bd0...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, flak...@aol.com says...
The following is a review of several studies of IQ and religiosity,
parts of this page are paraphrased and summarized by Jim Tims, from
Burnham Beckwith's article, "The Effect of Intelligence on Religious
Faith," Free Inquiry, Spring 1986.
STUDIES OF STUDENTS
1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in
general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."
2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more
intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward=3F atheism."
3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16.
Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by
the Terman intelligence test.
4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported,
"There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal
religious thinking and mental ability=3F There is also a constant positive
relation between liberal scores and intelligence=3F"
5. Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and
liberal attitudes to go together."
6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship
between intelligence and attitude toward god."
7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and
Thurstone "reality of god" scores.
8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The
mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it
was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers
in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."
9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts
earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and
intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."
10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an
anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence.
Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of
Wisconsin.
11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.
12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability
students in his sample group were over-represented.
13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering
college and after 2 years of college.
14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and
53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.
15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.
16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti-religious
(1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022).
17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported
"nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more
intelligent than religious S's."
Others :
Pratt (1937) among 3040 students at regional state college, taking
denomenational affiliation as sign of religiocity, "found that non-
affiliates recorded lower mean scores on the American council
Examination than any students affiliated to any denomenational group."
Francis (1979)(using fequency of prayer and chruch attendence) 2272
school children between 9-11,"found no relationship between school
assigned IQ's and religious behavior after controling for paternal
social class."
Francis'('86 replication) findings replicated in second study among 6955
students.
STUDENT BODY COMPARISONS
1. Rose Goldsen, 1952
Percentage of students who believe in a divine god: Harvard 30; UCLA 32;
Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43; Weslyan 43; Michigan 45;
Fisk 60; Texas 62; North Carolina 68.
2. National Review Study, 1970
Percentage of students who believe in a Spirit or Divine God: Reed 15;
Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41; Boston U. 41;
Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65; Marquette
77.
[Marquette is a religious school]
3. Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977
Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5 percent in "low" ranked schools
to 17 percent in "high" ranked schools.
4. Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978
In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26
percent of their students, compared with 44 percent of all students.
STUDIES OF VERY-HIGH IQ GROUPS
1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong
religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57
percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent
of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all
important."
2. Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have
been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis
of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.
3. Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much
less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or
adult.
STUDIES Of SCIENTISTS
1. William S. Ament, 1927
C. C. Little, president of the University of Michigan, checked persons
listed in Who's Who in America: "Unitarians, Episcopalians,
Congregationalists, Universalists, and Presbyterians [who are less
religious] are=3F far more numerous in Who's Who than would be expected on
the basis of the population which they form. Baptists, Methodists, and
Catholics are distinctly less numerous."
Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least
religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the
U.S. population.
2. Lehman and Witty, 1931
Identified 1189 scientists found in both Who's Who (1927) and American
Men of Science (1927). Only 25 percent of those listed in the latter and
50 percent of those in the former reported their religious denomination,
despite the specific request to do so, under the heading of "religious
denomination (if any)." Well over 90 percent of the general population
claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25 percent suggests far less
religiosity among scientists.
Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as non-
Unitarians.
3. Kelley and Fisk, 1951
Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious
values and research competence. [How these were measured is unknown.]
4. Ann Roe, 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the
prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical
Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious
parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are
seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even
give some financial support to a church which they do not attend=3F All
the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and
the church plays no part in their lives=3F A few are militantly atheistic,
but most are just not interested.'"
5. Francis Bello, 1954
Interviewed or questionnaired 107 nonindustrial scientists under the age
of 40 judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. Of the 87
responses, 45 percent claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an
additional 22 percent claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most
eminent, "the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher
than in the entire survey group."
6. Jack Chambers, 1964
Questionnaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "The
highly creative men=3F significantly more often show either no preference
for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion." Found
that the most eminent psychologists showed 40 percent no preference, 16
percent for the most eminent chemists.
7. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965
Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists
listed in American Men of Science (1955) on church membership, and
attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5
percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did.
Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than
among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The
Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S.
population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less
religious than the typical adult.
Conclusion
The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to believe
in religion. And this observation is given added force when you consider
that the above studies span a broad range of time, subjects and
methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion.
This is the result even when the researchers are Christian conservatives
themselves. One such researcher is George Gallup. Here are the results
of a Fall 1995 Gallup poll:
Percentage of respondents who agreed with the following statements:
Religion is Religion can
"very important "answer all or most
Respondents in their life" of today's problems"
------------------------------------------------------------
Attended college 53 percent 58 percent
No college 63 65
Income over $50,000 48 56
$30,000 - $50,000 56 62
$20,000 - $30,000 56 60
Under $20,000 66 66
Why does this correlation exist? The first answer that comes to mind is
that religious beliefs tend to be more illogical or incoherent than
secular beliefs, and intelligent people tend to recognize that more
quickly. But this explanation will surely be rejected by religious
people, who will seek other explanations and rationalizations.
According to Nature 394:313, a recent survey of members of the National
Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are
agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.
According to the Skeptic magazine vol.6 #2 1998, in multiple studies,
there is a negative correlation between theism and morality. By
Franzblau's 1934 study, there's a negative correlation between
religiousity and honesty. Ross 1950 shows atheists and agnostics are
more likely to express their willingness to help the poor than the
deeply religious. 1969 Hirschi and Stark found no correlation in
lawbreaking by churchgoing children and non-churchgoing children.
This same Skeptic published the results of another study that compared
professions and likelihood of believing in God. The general public was
just over 90% likely to believe in God. Scientists in general were just
under 40% likely. Mathematicians were just over 40% likely, biologists
just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in
God.
James Beck
> Sirius wrote:
>
> > adman wrote:
> >
> >> We're already paying the price. As science replaces the one
> >> true God in our society we feel its effects. Crime, murder,
> >> robbery, disrespect, love of money, hatred towards one another,
> >> and a whole host poor behavior are direct result from God been
> >> replaced by scientific nonsense and junk science. Science for
> >> the most part wants to better man kind.
> >
> > This supposed positive effect of religious belief on crime rate
> > as been proven false. Crime rate is much higher in religious
> > America than in Europe where religion is a private matter,
> > and where, all over the XX. religious belief receded and
> > simultaneously violent crime rate collapsed. So there is no
> > know correlation between religious belief and morality.
>
> But you contradict yourself. There *IS* a correlation between
> religiosity and morality and violent crime. A very, very strong
> one, perhaps stronger than any other indicator.
>
> It's just that the correlation is inverse rather than direct, as
> the godbots claim.
>
> Cheers,
>
> b&
>
>
Not unexpected as a result. Note that atheists, being a moderate
proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately
less in the prison populations (0.21%).
Tiktaalik
> adman wrote:
> > We're already paying the price. As science replaces the one true God in our
> > society we feel its effects. Crime, murder, robbery, disrespect, love of
> > money, hatred towards one another, and a whole host poor behavior are direct
> > result from God been replaced by scientific nonsense and junk science.
>
> Can you possibly be any more stupid?
Trust me. He can.
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being." (Abraham Lincoln).
Ron Peterson
How do you propose to prevent cases like
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/28/prayer.death.ap/index.html ?
--
Ron
Bible Bob
Buddika,
Side effects of religious stupidity; atheism and evolutionism; and,
feminism, communism, socialism, facism, liberalism, etc.
BB
Hatter
>
> So you're saying all believers are not living "as they like?" How then are
> they living and why do they bother to keep living? What are atheists doing
> that upsets believers so?
>
They are pointing to the fact the emperor has no clothes and their
beliefs have no proof.
Hatter
James Beck
bibl...@saintly.com says...
Side effect of religious stupidity can be seen through out the history
of the church and its' actions.
Muslims and their actions.
Stupidity is part and parcel to the religious experience.
You gotta' be dumb to fall for it.
***********************************************************************
Hatter
slippery slope.
Jabbers
Hatter
Ben Goren
> Sockie wrote:
>
>> So you're saying all believers are not living "as they like?"
>> How then are they living and why do they bother to keep living?
>> What are atheists doing that upsets believers so?
>
> They are pointing to the fact the emperor has no clothes and
> their beliefs have no proof.
...and a few of us are making it clear to them that, not only is
their invisible emperor naked and imaginary, he's fuckin' ugly,
too!
Cary Kittrell
Hey, five good things out of seven? Not a bad record for any system.
-- cary
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:49:48 -0700, IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> If you let yourself be dragged down by ignorance of science and blind
>> belief in antiquated mythology, you will pay the price, sooner or
>> later. If it's not you, it'll be your children.
>>
>> Budikka
> REPLY: Pond Scum to 206 bone Human Being is desperate psuedo-science.
Actually, it's just science. No "pseudo" about it.
> Its a last ditch THEORY
Sigh. The creationist boneheads need to wake up and learn two things, if
they never learn anything else in their lives.
One is that evolution is *not* a theory, it's as real as a kick in the
head.
The other is that when they say "theory" the way they do - as if it
somehow equated to "wild-assed guess" - they just make themselves look
even stupider than they already look.
In science, a theory is *not* just a wild-assed guess. A theory is an
explanation which has withstood *every* serious attempt to falsify it,
come through this sustained onslaught and *remains*, despite that.
A theory is the best explanation available, given every piece of
information we have available to us. It is manifestly _not_ a wild-assed
guess.
> from a 19th century Scientist who himself
> profusely apologized for his incomplete work.
Got news for you - almost no scientist's work is "completed".
> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> out of nothing when it didnt have to .
Sheer assertion that it came into existence _at all_. Try again.
> 2. We have a Universe with over
> 250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
> called Earth.
Given the number of galaxies, stars per galaxy, etc, etc, etc, it is
hardly surprising that some will have conditions suitable to life as we
know it.
Perhaps more to the point, though, is that for some reason the author
examines _only_ the concept of life _as we know it_, neglecting the
possibility of life which could flourish in other conditions.
> 3. LIfe that has been observed to arise only from existing
> life and not arise spontaneously.
Yet an absolute necessity, in *any* model, is the notion that either life
has always existed (which is not born out by any evidence or chain of
logic) _or_ that life arose where no previous life existed. A total non-
issue, as it is common to all views.
> 4. LIfe consists of thousands and even
> millions of volumes
What, precisely, is a "volume"? How does one measure that? Cubic
centimeters? Pounds? Rods per hogshead?
> of empirically detectable specified complexity
WTF is "specified complexity"?
One might point out that the maximally complex data stream is a purely
random one; this is why random data doesn't compress worth a damn. One
might suspect the author didn't really mean "complexity" here, but
something entirely different.
> non living chemicals it contains).5. Life which changes cyclically and
> only within a limited range.
Not sure what that's supposed to mean; does it relate to birds who
migrate with the seasons, or something else?
> 6. Life which cannot be built or modified
> gradually (IE: irreduciblecomplexity).
Ah, yes, the old IC line. One wonders if the author is familiar with
concepts such as adoption of existing structures, adaptation of existing
structures to new purposes and other such notions. Apparently not.
> 7. Life that leaves a fossil
> record of fully formed creatures that appear suddenly, do not change,
> and then disappear suddenly.
Which, of course, is exactly as we'd expect. Again, the author's point
isn't clear.
> ... An honest look at the facts suggests creation
Actually, none of what you posted even hints at that as a conclusion.
Moreover, were we to examine the notion of a creation, we'd be left with
the little issue that no such creative entity has ever been discovered,
no instances of creation have ever been observed, no evidential basis
whatsoever exists for such a notion - but hey, that doesn't matter, it's
just gotta be, just cuz, right?
> macroevolution,is true. And it suggests a highly intelligent personal
> Creator has been at work
A highly intelligent creator whose creations... how did you put it? Ah
yes, creations which arise suddenly, don't change, then disappear
suddenly. You'd think such an intelligent creator would be able to make
something a little more durable.
Perhaps more to the point, you'd expect this supposed creator to be able
to produce something which, in at least *some* manner, was not readily
confused with purely natural processes, giving the appearance no such
creation was involved at all, just the natural processes.
Funny how that works, an intelligent creator who can't actually do
anything beyond the scope of simple, mindless natural processes. Not all
that intelligent, then, is he?
> , not 'Natural Causes' which imply no purpose,
> no ultimate meaning, nor infinite worth or dignity toward Humankind
WTF has any of that crap got to do with anything?
If I'm trying to figure out how something is built, whether it is a
computer or a cat, the implications of social worth of the process which
brought the thing about are *not* the subject on the table; the subject
on the table is the processes themselves. Don't go getting all confused
about such things. Focus on the problem.
> yet intrinsic self worth, dignity, and meaning is portrayed in the daily
> life of an atheist , when in reality if atheism is true
WTF does "if atheism is true" mean? Atheism is simply the lack of belief
in gods - WTF is there about it that can be "true" or "false"? Right,
nothing. So why would you spew such an obvious bit of demented tripe as
"if atheism is true"?
> Atheism is a bankrupt FAITH
Atheism is not a faith at all. It is the non-existence of a particular
faith, the faith in deities.
Why can't you people get even the simplest things correct, hmm?
Leo Marx
>
> We're already paying the price. As science replaces the one true God in our
> society we feel its effects. Crime, murder, robbery, disrespect, love of
> money, hatred towards one another, and a whole host poor behavior are direct
> result from God been replaced by scientific nonsense and junk science.
> Science for the most part wants to better man kind. However true science has
> been hijacked and perverted into a demonstrable field of speculation, gases,
> and outright lies to fool the public into believing man has the answers.
>
> It's really THAT simple.
Can you tell me who or what "the one true God" is?
Is it the god of the jews?
One of the many christian sects? God the father, the son of god or the
holy ghost?
The Muslims?
The gods of the Native Americans?
One of the pagan gods?
And, how did you figure out which one is the true god?
Intelligent people want to know.
JAM
curtjester1
I don't. Of course gov't might. It will always be an issue when
authority figures are involved. God, family, individual, secular
gov't body, place of employment, the AMA. They all have parameter and
somtimes human acts and issues intersect. It will never end until
there is a dominate authority figure from the top.
JW's refrain from blood. They bring out medical stats, and religious
scriptural backing to support their positions. It will always be the
blood transfusion would have saved the life by the AMA. They say,
blood expanders are ample and good surgery saves lives, and blood
transfusions spread diseases, and cause more deaths than they even
come close to think that they save. The best society has done so far
is to have hospitals to cater to the that specific belief and need.
Do I feel outraged at your example? No. People die from all sorts of
ways, and in ways not to life expectancy. It's always been that way.
One can feel empathy and still maintain a neutral position.
CJ
Budikka666
Budikka
johac
<e17285ae-ef04-4fba...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No. I just want people to take care of their kids.
BTW, nice strawman.
>
> CJ
>
> > > Budikka
> >
> > --
> > John #1782- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
--
John #1782
Rod
> TUPELO, Miss., -- A federal court of appeals has ruled in favor of an
> inmate who claimed that Wisconsin prison officials violated his rights
> under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they
> refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
>
> The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prison officials erred
> because they “did not treat atheism as a ‘religion.’” The court said,
> “Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to
> start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief
> in a supreme being.”
>
> Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association
> Center for Law & Policy, described the court’s ruling as “a sort of
> Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”
>
> “Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,”
> stated Fahling.
>
> The Supreme Court has said that a religion need not be based on a belief
> in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v.
> Watkins, the Court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
>
> ************
>
> Yes, atheism is a religion and is recognized as such by Federal Courts
> in the USA. More ammo for you to use against those who doubt your FAITH!
>
>
Atheism is not a religion..the fact that a judge and lawyers see it
as such is just another indication of the mentality of sickness that
permeates society today. Atheism is a mode of existence, a means of
living ones life free of unjustified restraint.
Masculist
What are you talking about? If you were religious and hung around
atheists as much as I have, you'd think they were fundementalists.
Ironic I know, but true. It goes to show you that humans can't exist
without some kind of belief. The more they deny it the more they look
like fundies
Tom
pba...@worldonline.nl
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Sorry, in what way would atheists ressemble fundies?
Do they claim they have a book that contains the thruth about
everything and cannot be improved upon and that keeps being the
literal truth even in translation?
Or do they tell others what to do with their private life?
Tell me what is the similarity!
Peter van Velzen
May 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
James Beck
@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, MASC...@gmail.com says...
> On May 9, 10:11 am, Rod <icom...@att.net> wrote:
> > Bibon wrote:
> > > TUPELO, Miss., -- A federal court of appeals has ruled in favor of an
> > > inmate who claimed that Wisconsin prison officials violated his rights
> > > under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they
> > > refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
> >
> > > The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prison officials erred
> > > =3FAtheism is [the inmate=3Fs] religion, and the group that he wanted to
> > > start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief
> >
> > > Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association
> > > Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.=3F
> >
> > > =3FUp is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,=3F
> > > stated Fahling.
> >
> > > The Supreme Court has said that a religion need not be based on a belief
> > > in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v.
> >
> > > ************
> >
> > > Yes, atheism is a religion and is recognized as such by Federal Courts
> > > in the USA. More ammo for you to use against those who doubt your FAITH!
> >
> > Atheism is not a religion..the fact that a judge and lawyers see it
> > as such is just another indication of the mentality of sickness that
> > permeates society today. Atheism is a mode of existence, a means of
> > living ones life free of unjustified restraint.
>
> What are you talking about? If you were religious and hung around
> atheists as much as I have, you'd think they were fundementalists.
> Ironic I know, but true. It goes to show you that humans can't exist
> without some kind of belief. The more they deny it the more they look
> like fundies
I think you are missing one large gotcha' here.
By and large atheists don't go out and stick their lack of beliefs in
your face. When you get someone that acts rabidly atheist, it is
usually a response to some theist-fundy trying to foist their religion
on us or the government. I'll bet not a single one of my neighbors
knows that I am an atheist and I don't know if they are too or what
church they go to if they do such a thing and yet we all get a long and
socialize just fine. To every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction. Stay out of my life and I will stay out of yours. Live and
let live and all.
Jim
Hatter
> TUPELO, Miss., -- A federal court of appeals has ruled in favor of an
> inmate who claimed that Wisconsin prison officials violated his rights
> under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they
> refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
>
> The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prison officials erred
> start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief
>
> Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family
> sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”
>
> “Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,”
> stated Fahling.
>
> The Supreme Court has said that a religion need not be based on a
> belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso
>
> ************
>
> Yes, atheism is a religion and is recognized as such by Federal Courts
> in the USA. More ammo for you to use against those who doubt your FAITH!
>
> Semper Gumby
Lou Ferigno and Steven Hawking were not equal at birth...they were
not created equal...but it is an important legal fiction to treat them
equal under the law. It is called a legal fiction, just like this one.
Get yourself educated.
Hatter
Leo Marx
>
> What are you talking about? If you were religious and hung around
> atheists as much as I have, you'd think they were fundementalists.
> Ironic I know, but true. It goes to show you that humans can't exist
> without some kind of belief. The more they deny it the more they look
> like fundies
>
> Tom
Wow! That is one of the dumbest statements I've read in this group.
JAM
adman
"Leo Marx" <Leo...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:48233ADB...@nospam.net...
Intelligent people do not have to ask.
Bible Bob
wrote:
>TUPELO, Miss., -- A federal court of appeals has ruled in favor of an
>inmate who claimed that Wisconsin prison officials violated his rights
>under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they
>refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
>
>The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prison officials erred
>because they “did not treat atheism as a ‘religion.’” The court said,
>“Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to
>start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief
>in a supreme being.”
>
>Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family
>Association Center for Law & Policy, described the court’s ruling as “a
>sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”
>
>“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,”
>stated Fahling.
>
>The Supreme Court has said that a religion need not be based on a
>belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso
>v. Watkins, the Court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
>
> ************
>
>Yes, atheism is a religion and is recognized as such by Federal Courts
>in the USA. More ammo for you to use against those who doubt your FAITH!
Bibon,
Atheism is not a side effect of religious stupidity. It is religious
stupidity practiced by fundamentalist religionists.
BB
Bible Bob
Rod,
Atheism is a religion as indicated by the "ism" suffix. While not all
atheists belong to the religious cult; many do. Those that do promote
their religion and speak against other religions just like
fundamentalists from other religions do. Atheism involves self
worship, man worship, and systems worship.
James Beck
says...
Sorry, there is ample evidence that the MORE intelligent one is the less
likely they are to believe in any type of personal creator. So, the
inverse must also be true. The dumber you are the MORE likely you are
to fall for stupid fairy tales.
Jim
Leo Marx
Thanks Jim, you saved me a lot of typing!
JAM
Ben Goren
> Atheism is a religion as indicated by the "ism" suffix.
May the disciples of botulism, catabolism, and astigmatism
proselytize you at your abode.
Oh, wait...the astigmatists already got to you, I see, and the
catabolists seem to be working on your brain.
adman
"James Beck" <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.228e9140e...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
Incorrect.
SeppoP
So, if I don't play flute, according to you I'm a musician who practices
not playing flute?
You jesus freaks really are idiots...
-sp
ken
off another one of his typical delusion rants
<IlBe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4daef7c-ef04-4553...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 4:07 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Creationism is bad enough as it is, abusing hard-working scientists
> and trying every underhand method they can dig up to LIE to children
> as in this example of their behavior over the so-called "academic
> freedom" bill in Florida (atwww.pandasthumb.org:http://tinyurl.com/4ahxf2
>
> But one all-too-often overlooked effect of their determined ignorance
> and stupidity is children dying
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
SongBookz
"SeppoP" <seppo_pi...@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:68ko16F...@mid.individual.net...
Very weak analogy. If you don't play the flute, you're not a flutist - you
may or may not still be a musician.
"Atheist" means "without Theism" (deity is a synonym). It does not mean
"without religion." Zen is an example of a religion that is also atheist.
Atheism qualifies as religion under word's, "religion," definition:
- A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe - atheists may or may not, but commonly, believe the universe began
with a "big bang," life arose through evolution and natural selection, and
so forth (and some non-atheists have similiar beliefs). The fact that
everyone has beliefs concerning the "cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe," indicates that everyone has a religion.
Terrell
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
What exactly are you freeing yourself of? Is society or religion
forcing you to have to have one of their belief system's? "Unjustifed
Restraint"? What a hoot!
The fact is, anything is and can be umbrelled under religion.
Hedonism, government followers.... they are all basically
'lifestyles' that people side up on. Atheism *IS* just another
religion because they embrace and prosetelyze a system that they don't
care for, a belief in a higher power. They have no way to actually
prove it, but their religion is to downgrade, debunk, or demoralize
people that do. I find their argument that an answer(s) in a book
thing also amusing, in that usually they use books all the time to
promote, degrade..and whatever they do to keep their *religion*
alive.
CJ
adman
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b58e924-2de4-42d5...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
CJ
I bet the book sales make the authors happy.
On both sides.
Bob T.
Remind us which God is worshipped by the "botulism" religion.
Geez, Bob, I corrected you on this silliness just the other day. Try
to keep up!
- Bob T.
> While not all
> atheists belong to the religious cult; many do. Those that do promote
> their religion and speak against other religions just like
> fundamentalists from other religions do. Atheism involves self
> worship, man worship, and systems worship. - Hide quoted text -
Rod
Really ? Have you walked a mile in another mans shoes ? Have you ever
been refused a job because you wouldn't join a church or pray ? Have
you ever received good reviews from an employer until a supervisor
found out that you are not a follower of christ or believe in a god ?
I have. As a matter of fact I filed, fought and WON just such a
lawsuit 7 years ago against a christian trucking company that
canceled a contract because I am not a christian. I beat
the pants off of them in court and I'm not done with them yet.
And this only is scratching the surface of what has been happening
to people all across this country. Personally, your bible forcasts
that christians will be persecuted by non believers and evil men..
my life experience tells me that at least a small portion of the
christian population has brought these repercussions upon themselves.
Of course I'm guessing now, but I'm inclined to believe that you're
going to respond with a patent denial of a case that has already been
proven in a court, and as one preacher put it, "this was nothing more
than a paint job done by an atheist on an innocent christian
company and it's owners solely out of hatred."
Well my christian friend, hatred has a cause, but feel free to prove
me wrong at any time....
>
> The fact is, anything is and can be umbrelled under religion.
> Hedonism, government followers.... they are all basically
> 'lifestyles' that people side up on. Atheism *IS* just another
> religion because they embrace and prosetelyze a system that they don't
> care for, a belief in a higher power.
The very fact the you have convinced yourself to believe that
your statement applies to any and all atheistic peoples simply
goes to demonstrate your ignorance of human nature and progressive
will of the human spirit.
I've done without the help of the imaginary figure for quite a spell
now. As a matter of fact, I'm still in awe that he didn't put in
an appearance in the courtroom to defend his "innocent christian
corporation"....
> They have no way to actually
> prove it, but their religion is to downgrade, debunk, or demoralize
> people that do.
Actually I'm about to make a liar of you in my case. My wife is a
christian. I don't beat her, degrade her, belittle her for her faith,
I don't rape her daily or tell her to fetch my news paper, and I don't
make her take out the trash. I love her. Thats right christian, atheists
feel love just as you do. I've even helped the members of her church set
up and get going a greenhouse, and I did it all without taking a single
christian life !
Thats amazing, isn't it ?? I knew you'd see it that way !
Rod
SeppoP
Ok, let's make the analogy better - I don't play *any* instrument *at
all*, I'm not even interested in playing one. By your reckoning my
religion is "not playing music"?
>
> "Atheist" means "without Theism" (deity is a synonym). It does not mean
> "without religion." Zen is an example of a religion that is also atheist.
>
Trying to redefine terms you don't like doesn't make your definition any
better or any more real.
> Atheism qualifies as religion under word's, "religion," definition:
>
> - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
> universe - atheists may or may not, but commonly, believe the universe
> began with a "big bang," life arose through evolution and natural
> selection, and so forth (and some non-atheists have similiar beliefs).
> The fact that everyone has beliefs concerning the "cause, nature, and
> purpose of the universe," indicates that everyone has a religion.
Your redefinition of religion makes *everything* a religion which makes
it immaterial and absolutely useless.
You're also trying to redefine the word "belief" conflating religious
faith with accepting a set of scientific theories as provisional facts.
I *accecpt* the BB and the theory of evolution as the best scientific
explanations currently available. However I have no *faith* in those
concepts and I wouldn't lose one second of sleep if either one were to
be falsified tomorrow and a *better* theory with more explanatory power
were to replace them.
>
> Terrell
>
-sp
John Smith
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b58e924-2de4-42d5...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
**Atheism is not a religion, no matter how a judge describes it.
**Atheism, though, still has all the rights that are given in "religious
freedom"; it can be no other way.
**They "embrace" nothing - they are merely defending their rights and their
"religious" freedoms fro attacks by fanatical, ignorant, Hitleresque
religious zealots.
**Calling atheism a religon would be like callingh Judaism a form of
Nazi-ism.
They have no way to actually
prove it, but their religion is to downgrade, debunk, or demoralize
people that do. I find their argument that an answer(s) in a book
thing also amusing, in that usually they use books all the time to
promote, degrade..and whatever they do to keep their *religion*
alive.
**Take your blinders off, and get your "lying for jesus" head out of your
ass!
**The VAST majority of acts yuou descibe are done by believers against other
believers and atheists.
Bible Bob
Bob T,
You thought you corrected me; but you didn't.
Let's see if I can dumb this down for you. Botulism and atheisim are
both isms which are religions that harm people. Both are toxix to
humans. Surely you can see the similarities between atheism and
botulism.
Botulism is a rare but serious paralytic illness caused by a nerve
toxin that is produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum. There
are three main kinds of botulism. Foodborne botulism is caused by
eating foods that contain the botulism toxin. Wound botulism is caused
by toxin produced from a wound infected with Clostridium botulinum.
Infant botulism is caused by consuming the spores of the botulinum
bacteria, which then grow in the intestines and release toxin. All
forms of botulism can be fatal and are considered medical emergencies.
Foodborne botulism can be especially dangerous because many people can
be poisoned by eating a contaminated food.
Here, I will quote from your bible.
The -ism suffix can be used to express the following concepts:
religion or belief system (e.g. Mormonism, Judaism, Satanism)
doctrine or philosophy (e.g. pacifism, olympism)
theory developed by an individual (e.g. Marxism, Communism)
political movement (e.g. feminism, Equalism)
artistic movement (e.g. cubism)
action, process or practice (e.g. voyeurism)
characteristic, quality or origin (e.g. heroism)
state or condition (e.g. pauperism)
excess or disease (e.g. botulism)
prejudice or bias (e.g. racism, sexism)
characteristic speech patterns (e.g. Yogiism, Bushism)
Many isms are defined as an act or practice by some, while also being
defined as the doctrine or philosophy behind the act or practice by
others. Examples include activism, altruism, despotism, elitism,
optimism, sexism and terrorism.
The first recorded usage of the suffix ism as a separate word in its
own right was in 1680. By the nineteenth century it was being used by
Thomas Carlyle to signify a pre-packaged ideology.
Religion is nothing more than what men do. Botulism is what botuls
do. Voyeurism is what you do at me as a manifestation of your
elitism.
BB
Bob T.
Holy shitism! Your idiotism has no limitisms!
- Bob T.
>
> BB- Hide quoted text -
Rod
Surely if this were true we could observe christians dropping like
flies gathering around a cow turd. However, I am still married,
my wife is still breathing without any ill effects from my
presence, and the neighbors are friendly.
However, the remainder of your post is to absurdly funny to
cope with until I am able to stop laughing.
Rod
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ever get the feeling he really doesn't know exactly enough what he
believes in to actually define it?
CJ
curtjester1
that won't promote because you refuse to adhere to liberal policies of
sexual lifestyles? Have you lost the job because you are too straight
because they have to have people on their payroll that will bend
convictions for the company store and their less than moral business
principles? Anyway, those examples could be endless, but I think one
would get my drift.
> I have. As a matter of fact I filed, fought and WON just such a
> lawsuit 7 years ago against a christian trucking company that
> canceled a contract because I am not a christian. I beat
> the pants off of them in court and I'm not done with them yet.
>
There are many of companies to choose from that hate anything to do
with Christianity.
> And this only is scratching the surface of what has been happening
> to people all across this country. Personally, your bible forcasts
> that christians will be persecuted by non believers and evil men..
> my life experience tells me that at least a small portion of the
> christian population has brought these repercussions upon themselves.
>
I could give several examples of execution by gov't heads because they
wouldn't adhere to the practices of the State/Country.
> Of course I'm guessing now, but I'm inclined to believe that you're
> going to respond with a patent denial of a case that has already been
> proven in a court, and as one preacher put it, "this was nothing more
> than a paint job done by an atheist on an innocent christian
> company and it's owners solely out of hatred."
>
Truth be known, I don't even care for lots of so-called Christian
organizations or their hypocritical business adherences. Of course I
don't think atheists have anything to be proud of.
> Well my christian friend, hatred has a cause, but feel free to prove
> me wrong at any time....
>
I could bring out some scriptures of false christianity and business
and governtment from the Bible Book of Revelation and will if
genuinely interested.
>
>
> > The fact is, anything is and can be umbrelled under religion.
> > Hedonism, government followers.... they are all basically
> > 'lifestyles' that people side up on. Atheism *IS* just another
> > religion because they embrace and prosetelyze a system that they don't
> > care for, a belief in a higher power.
>
> The very fact the you have convinced yourself to believe that
> your statement applies to any and all atheistic peoples simply
> goes to demonstrate your ignorance of human nature and progressive
> will of the human spirit.
>
As I said, atheism would point one in the direction of self-
centeredness. No one to answer to, and no guidelines to keep you
under an umbrella. See, I am not personally attacking.
> I've done without the help of the imaginary figure for quite a spell
> now. As a matter of fact, I'm still in awe that he didn't put in
> an appearance in the courtroom to defend his "innocent christian
> corporation"....
>
Who knows he might have. There is another example in Rev. about the
state coming to the aid of Christians in their situation of
persecution..which has happened.
> > They have no way to actually
> > prove it, but their religion is to downgrade, debunk, or demoralize
> > people that do.
>
> Actually I'm about to make a liar of you in my case. My wife is a
> christian. I don't beat her, degrade her, belittle her for her faith,
> I don't rape her daily or tell her to fetch my news paper, and I don't
> make her take out the trash. I love her. Thats right christian, atheists
> feel love just as you do. I've even helped the members of her church set
> up and get going a greenhouse, and I did it all without taking a single
> christian life !
>
Hey, when one wants some nookie, one will do all sorts of
things...it's not that compelling.
> Thats amazing, isn't it ?? I knew you'd see it that way !
>
> Rod
>
Yup. You have a little hope.
CJ
>
>
> > I find their argument that an answer(s) in a book
> > thing also amusing, in that usually they use books all the time to
> > promote, degrade..and whatever they do to keep their *religion*
> > alive.
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
SongBookz
Still a weak analogy - comparing apples to oranges.
>>
>> "Atheist" means "without Theism" (deity is a synonym). It does not mean
>> "without religion." Zen is an example of a religion that is also
>> atheist.
>>
>
> Trying to redefine terms you don't like doesn't make your definition any
> better or any more real.
>
>> Atheism qualifies as religion under word's, "religion," definition:
>>
>> - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
>> universe - atheists may or may not, but commonly, believe the universe
>> began with a "big bang," life arose through evolution and natural
>> selection, and so forth (and some non-atheists have similiar beliefs).
>> The fact that everyone has beliefs concerning the "cause, nature, and
>> purpose of the universe," indicates that everyone has a religion.
>
> Your redefinition of religion makes *everything* a religion which makes
> it immaterial and absolutely useless.
>
Not my definition - I simply copied the definition from a dictionary.
The fact that all people have a religion doesn't make it any more
"immaterial and absolutely useless" than saying we all have a heart or lungs
of kidneys makes hearts and lungs "immaterial and absolutely useless."
"Religion" is a word that describes part of the human condition - we all
have one, like we all have livers and spleens.
> You're also trying to redefine the word "belief" conflating religious
> faith with accepting a set of scientific theories as provisional facts.
>
A "provisional fact" isn't really a fact at all now, is it? It might be a
fact, but then again it might not. At one time, a flat earth was a
"provisional fact" and that the earth was the center of the universe was a
"provisional fact" but not any longer.
> I *accecpt* the BB and the theory of evolution as the best scientific
> explanations currently available. However I have no *faith* in those
> concepts and I wouldn't lose one second of sleep if either one were to be
> falsified tomorrow and a *better* theory with more explanatory power were
> to replace them.
>
The American Heritage dictionary defines "Faith" as "Confident belief in the
truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."
Dictionary.com defines it as : 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would
be substantiated by fact.
That last particularly describes faith in the BB or evolution. Neither are
proven but make sense to a large number of people, including a large number
of theists. Personally, I have no problem with either theory, wasn't around
back then and don't know anyone who was so it might have happened that way,
it might not have - makes no difference to me either way.
I do think, however, that religion was necessary to human social evolution.
It may be counterintuitive now, but when ancient man gathered around fires
at night and began to speculate on his origin that the resulting religious
beliefs enabled man to subvert the need of the one to the need of the group.
At one time, it didn't matter that people in the Middle East shared one set
of religious beliefs while people in Europe shared a different set, they
rarely came into conflict, but now, as the earth has (figuratively) grown
smaller, different sets of religious beliefs have come into close proximity
and created conflict instead of cohesiveness. So, what, in the past,
enabled us to live together is becoming what drives us apart.
Anyway, religion is part of the human condition, it's instinctual. We have
to believe "something" even if it's a conscious decision to believe in
"nothing."
Terrell
Preventer of Work
> Creationism is bad enough as it is, abusing hard-working scientists
> and trying every underhand method they can dig up to LIE to children
> as in this example of their behavior over the so-called "academic
> freedom" bill in Florida (at www.pandasthumb.org:
> http://tinyurl.com/4ahxf2
>
> But one all-too-often overlooked effect of their determined ignorance
> www.scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey
> http://tinyurl.com/4et2m9
> and
> www.scienceblogs.com/insolence/
> http://tinyurl.com/3l4ezk
>
> If you let yourself be dragged down by ignorance of science and blind
> belief in antiquated mythology, you will pay the price, sooner or
> later. If it's not you, it'll be your children.
>
> Budikka
I followed and read the vaccine links, read some more of Orac's
(respectful insolence) material. What made this particular interesting
is an editorial in the local paper. The writer wonders what is driving
the anti-vaccination movement, but does not know enough to take a real
stand on the issue.
Thanks to your post, I will be able to tell him with quite a bit of
reference material to back me up.
Thanks again.
Bob T.
<snip>
> > Really ? Have you walked a mile in another mans shoes ? Have you ever
> > been refused a job because you wouldn't join a church or pray ? Have
> > you ever received good reviews from an employer until a supervisor
> > found out that you are not a follower of christ or believe in a god ?
>
> Let me tell you about the real world. Have you ever been on a job
> that won't promote because you refuse to adhere to liberal policies of
> sexual lifestyles?
You had an employer that wouldn't promote you unless you had a
homosexual relationship? That's terrible, I think you have a good
case for a lawsuit.
> Have you lost the job because you are too straight
> because they have to have people on their payroll that will bend
> convictions for the company store and their less than moral business
> principles? Anyway, those examples could be endless, but I think one
> would get my drift.
Oh, wait a minute - you just mean that your employer wouldn't put up
with your intolerant attitude about some of your fellow workers. Did
they write you up for repeatedly using the word "faggot"? Shocking!
- Bob T.
<snip>
Mike Painter
I worked for a mortician in the early 60's while going to collage. He was
Christian and had the morals of an alley cat.
Well over 40 years later and some of the things this Fucking Body Snatcher
did still bothers me.
I quit even though it meant I would be drafted.
So, yeah, I know where you are coming from.
I'm an atheist and I QUIT for moral reasons.
You aren't and you were fired.
You decided the money was of more value than what you believed to be right.
Rod
hey dude, that isn't even a kosher comment. I believe you know full
well what was meant. Love has more to offer than sex...
curtjester1
> On May 10, 3:59 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Really ? Have you walked a mile in another mans shoes ? Have you ever
> > > been refused a job because you wouldn't join a church or pray ? Have
> > > you ever received good reviews from an employer until a supervisor
> > > found out that you are not a follower of christ or believe in a god ?
>
> > Let me tell you about the real world. Have you ever been on a job
> > that won't promote because you refuse to adhere to liberal policies of
> > sexual lifestyles?
>
> You had an employer that wouldn't promote you unless you had a
> homosexual relationship? That's terrible, I think you have a good
> case for a lawsuit.
>
the social ladder just for being accessible.
Oh yeah, the lawsuit could have happened if everyone cooperated.
Unfortunately the Personel Director was let go when she caught wind of
the situation and was 'let go'.
> > Have you lost the job because you are too straight
> > because they have to have people on their payroll that will bend
> > convictions for the company store and their less than moral business
> > principles? Anyway, those examples could be endless, but I think one
> > would get my drift.
>
> Oh, wait a minute - you just mean that your employer wouldn't put up
> with your intolerant attitude about some of your fellow workers. Did
> they write you up for repeatedly using the word "faggot"? Shocking!
>
> - Bob T.
>
straight wouldn't have to mean personal preferance, gilligan. People
that are Christains are noted as square or straight.
Snip away, bashing bob.
CJ
> <snip>
Bob T.
Were you using the word to mean straight, as in "unwilling to commit
illegal acts on behalf of the company"? I certainly do not approve of
companies suborning their employees to commit illegal acts. But wait,
in the previous paragraph you were talking about "liberal policies of
sexual lifestyles". I admit, I am baffled. What sort of company did
you work for and what illegal act involving sexual lifestyles was
expected as part of your job?
I withdraw my previous comments pending clarification of which meaning
of the word "straight" was intended, and just a bit more information
about the general nature of the conflct you described.
> Snip away, bashing bob.
I thought you were describing a situation where you made unwelcome
comments about your coworkers' sexuality and lifestyle choices. Some
people would regard it as a restriction of their religious freedom if
they were asked to take down their "God Hates Fags" poster.
- Bob T.
>
> CJ
>
>
>
> > <snip>- Hide quoted text -
Bible Bob
Rod
before taking up the belief...if we're going to be honest then lets
be completely honest.....
Bible Bob
Rod,
Finally, someone appreciates my comedy.
BB
Mike Painter
<snip>
>> However, the remainder of your post is to absurdly funny to
>> cope with until I am able to stop laughing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rod
>
> Rod,
>
> Finally, someone appreciates my comedy.
Now all we need is for you to understand that your attempts at humor are not
funny, the comedy is your belief system.
speedy
"adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in message
news:yHpUj.143$C8...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:91ac4b59-f8e9-4594...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> | Creationism is bad enough as it is, abusing hard-working scientists
> | and trying every underhand method they can dig up to LIE to children
> | as in this example of their behavior over the so-called "academic
> | freedom" bill in Florida (at www.pandasthumb.org:
> | http://tinyurl.com/4ahxf2
> |
> | But one all-too-often overlooked effect of their determined ignorance
> | and stupidity is children dying as these two blogs address:
> | www.scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey
> | http://tinyurl.com/4et2m9
> | and
> | www.scienceblogs.com/insolence/
> | http://tinyurl.com/3l4ezk
> |
> | If you let yourself be dragged down by ignorance of science and blind
> | belief in antiquated mythology, you will pay the price, sooner or
> | later. If it's not you, it'll be your children.
> |
> | Budikka
>
> our
> society we feel its effects. Crime, murder, robbery, disrespect, love of
> money, hatred towards one another, and a whole host poor behavior are
> direct
> result from God been replaced by scientific nonsense and junk science.
Bull shit ! What a load of crap. All these things are choices made as a
result of
external natural pressures and / or living conditions.
Looks as if the inmates now have control of the asylum...
Spd
SongBookz
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RxFVj.3098$17....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
Happens to atheists all the time. They take themselves so seriously they
are often unintentionally funny.
Terrell
~ Säblë ~
>
Does this guy really want to go into homes, kidnap the kids, prove
there is no god, and tell them that life arose from the rocks? I
think he is proposing a Waco, I mean Wackos for the masses!
Since you claim your god exists, one of at least 10,000 known gods, where is
your scientific evidence for it? Where is the evidence any of the gods or
demons or angels exist? After over 2000 years surely Christians have some
concrete evidence of their particular gods existence... no?
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:32:43 -0500, SongBookz wrote:
> Atheism qualifies as religion under word's, "religion," definition:
>
> - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
> universe
Whoops, sorry, you dropped the ball there. The one key aspect of atheism
is that it is precisely about *not* having a belief.
Nice try, though.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:34:33 -0500, SongBookz wrote:
> The fact that all people have a religion
This is not a fact, as evidence by the existence of us atheists. Even if
one were to go as far as to say that all non-deity-oriented philosophies
are "religions", it *still* wouldn't work, as not all of us, by any
means, ascribe to such things.
So where, exactly, do you get this "the fact that all people have a
religion" nonsense from?
> useless." "Religion" is a word that describes part of the human
> condition - we all have one, like we all have livers and spleens.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but while we may indeed all have livers and
spleens, we do *not* all have religions. Try again.
>> You're also trying to redefine the word "belief" conflating religious
>> faith with accepting a set of scientific theories as provisional facts.
>>
>>
> A "provisional fact" isn't really a fact at all now, is it?
Isn't it? At most one can say it _might not_ be a fact. Then again, it
might. Since we're not omniscient, we don't claim to know many
absolutes, many capital-T Truths. What we do know is that which stands
up to critical scrutiny - but such things are, as noted, accepted as
provisionally true, not absolutely true.
> The American Heritage dictionary defines "Faith" as "Confident belief in
> the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."
It's one definition of faith. I have faith in my partner, because I know
her character. Given the choice to do the easy thing or the right thing,
she will do the right thing.
This is a radically different use of "faith" than that applied to
religious belief, which usage might be best summed up as "complete and
absolute unquestioning acceptance of an idea, despite no reason
whatsoever to accept it at all".
> 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
> would be substantiated by fact.
>
> That last particularly describes faith in the BB or evolution.
Actually, it describes _all_ science. Science doesn't do proof; it does
evidence. Religion, on the other hand, doesn't even bother with
evidence, going straight to completely unfounded acceptance. :)
> Neither
> are proven but make sense to a large number of people, including a large
> number of theists. Personally, I have no problem with either theory,
"Theory"? Sorry, you said "evolution", but now you're saying "theory".
Since evolution is not a theory, perhaps you could figure out just
exactly what it is you're trying to talk about, so that your statements
don't trip over each other, as they're doing right now.
> Anyway, religion is part of the human condition, it's instinctual.
If so, then some of us have evolved beyond having such a pointless
instinct.
> We
> have to believe "something"
Why?
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:18:07 -0400, Bible Bob wrote:
<nominated portion>
> Let's see if I can dumb this down for you. Botulism and atheisim are
> both isms which are religions that harm people.
</nominated portion>
Oh, good goat. Botulism? A religion? Now that's funny.
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
> Oh, good goat. Botulism? A religion? Now that's funny.
Would have been even better if you had quoted the original in full :) . For
the sake of convenience here's the message ID...
That said, theist's honorary second here. Bah, who needs a working brain
as long as she has... ya know... da great jebus?
(Note that in the original the morontheist displays knowledge of botulism
being a infection by toxine-producing bacteria indeed, but proceeds to call
it a religion/belief system anyway. Not bad even for a morontheist!)
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
James Beck
@hottmail.et says...
>
> "James Beck" <j...@reallykillersystems.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.228e9140e...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> | In article <zT2Vj.1898$C8....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, 72...@hottmail.et
> | says...
> | >
> | > "Leo Marx" <Leo...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> | > news:48233ADB...@nospam.net...
> | > | adman wrote:
> | > |
> | > | >
> in
> | > our
> | > | > society we feel its effects. Crime, murder, robbery, disrespect,
> love of
> | > | > money, hatred towards one another, and a whole host poor behavior
> are
> | > direct
> | > | > result from God been replaced by scientific nonsense and junk
> science.
> science
> | > has
> | > | > been hijacked and perverted into a demonstrable field of
> speculation,
> | > gases,
> | > | > and outright lies to fool the public into believing man has the
> answers.
> | > | >
> | > | > It's really THAT simple.
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | Is it the god of the jews?
> | > |
> | > | One of the many christian sects? God the father, the son of god or the
> | > | holy ghost?
> | > |
> | > | The Muslims?
> | > |
> | > | The gods of the Native Americans?
> | > |
> | > | One of the pagan gods?
> | > |
> | > | And, how did you figure out which one is the true god?
> | > |
> | > | Intelligent people want to know.
> | > |
> | > | JAM
> | >
> | > Intelligent people do not have to ask.
> |
> | Sorry, there is ample evidence that the MORE intelligent one is the less
> | likely they are to believe in any type of personal creator. So, the
> | inverse must also be true. The dumber you are the MORE likely you are
> | to fall for stupid fairy tales.
> |
> | Jim
>
> Incorrect.
>
See?
John Baker
Looks like he more or less proved your point. <G>
R. Dean
"Ken" <flak...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bef7459c-69b7-4865...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 2:07 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Creationism is bad enough as it is, abusing hard-working scientists
> and trying every underhand method they can dig up to LIE to children
> as in this example of their behavior over the so-called "academic
>
> But one all-too-often overlooked effect of their determined ignorance
> and stupidity is children dying as these two blogs
> address:www.scienceblogs.com/drugmonkeyhttp://tinyurl.com/4et2m9
>
> If you let yourself be dragged down by ignorance of science and blind
> belief in antiquated mythology, you will pay the price, sooner or
> later. If it's not you, it'll be your children.
>
> Budikka
The more one becomes educated, the less the find the need for
imaginary sky fairys and pseudo-science to explain how the world and
the universe really operates.
But then some people are just born terminal dumb asses.
I could name several in here
>
I'm curious, what exactly is a sky-fairy? And who do you propose
believes in your sky faries?
R. Dean
<IlBe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4daef7c-ef04-4553...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 4:07 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Creationism is bad enough as it is, abusing hard-working scientists
> and trying every underhand method they can dig up to LIE to children
> as in this example of their behavior over the so-called "academic
> freedom" bill in Florida (atwww.pandasthumb.org:http://tinyurl.com/4ahxf2
>
> But one all-too-often overlooked effect of their determined ignorance
> and stupidity is children dying as these two blogs
> address:www.scienceblogs.com/drugmonkeyhttp://tinyurl.com/4et2m9
> andwww.scienceblogs.com/insolence/http://tinyurl.com/3l4ezk
>
> If you let yourself be dragged down by ignorance of science and blind
> belief in antiquated mythology, you will pay the price, sooner or
> later. If it's not you, it'll be your children.
>
> Budikka
REPLY: Pond Scum to 206 bone Human Being is desperate psuedo-science.
Its a last ditch THEORY from a 19th century Scientist who himself
profusely apologized for his incomplete work. Here is what we have
fron REAL Science :
1. We have a Universe that came into being
out of nothing when it didnt have to.
2. We have a Universe with over
250 fine tuned , life enabling, constants for this tiny remote planet
called Earth.
3. Life that has been observed to arise only from
existing life and not arise spontaneously.
4. Life consists of thousands and even millions of volumes of
empirically detectable specified complexity as found in DNA
information/messages (and is therefore more than just the non
living chemicals it contains).
5. Life which changes cyclically and only within a limited range.
6. Life which cannot be built or modified gradually (IE: irreducible
complexity).
7.
Life that leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that appear
suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.
>
How many of these fine tuned constants can you name? Do you
consider the possibility that the laws of physics were written into
the fabric of creation at the beginning which allowed and governed
the development of the universe and the evolution of life all to unfold
in time: that life was prescribed into the fabric at the beginning?
>
... An honest look at the facts suggests creation, not
macroevolution,is true. And it suggests a highly intelligent personal
Creator has been at work , not 'Natural Causes' which imply no
purpose, no ultimate meaning, nor infinite worth or dignity toward
Humankind ; yet intrinsic self worth, dignity, and meaning is
portrayed in the daily life of an atheist , when in reality if atheism
is true, there should be no confirmation thereof.
Atheism is a bankrupt FAITH ; faith in the sheer impossible of ever
occuring for the sake of not wanting a personal Creator to exist so
one can live as he/she likes with no ultimate moral culpability. This
is the psychology behind atheism and always has been.
James Beck
rd...@bellsouth.net says...
> ... An honest look at the facts suggests creation, not
> macroevolution,is true. And it suggests a highly intelligent personal
> Creator has been at work ,
>
I have NEVER met a creationist/IDiot that even cared about the FACTS.
They turn the idea of scientific research around. They start with what
they want as an outcome and then mangle the evidence around to support
that preconceived notion.
"God did it" is the bankrupt faith.
It answers nothing, it adds nothing, and it contributes nothing to the
body of human knowledge. It is a dead end, it is the giving up on
looking for answers and the laying on the supernatural.
Jim
SongBookz
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mbdlf5-...@spankywork.localhost.net...
"A-theism" is not equal to "a-religion."
Nice try though.
For further on this point, perhaps you could read the earlier parts of the
thread instead of jumping in here at the end.
Terrell
Mike
>
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mbdlf5-...@spankywork.localhost.net...
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:32:43 -0500, SongBookz wrote:
>>
>>> Atheism qualifies as religion under word's, "religion," definition:
>>>
>>> - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
>>> universe
>>
>> Whoops, sorry, you dropped the ball there. The one key aspect of atheism
>> is that it is precisely about *not* having a belief.
>>
>> Nice try, though.
>>
>
> "A-theism" is not equal to "a-religion."
Nor is it equal to "religion." Just like "bald" (a-hair) is equal to
"fat" or "thin." Atheism IS equal to "lack of a belief in any god" but
such a person might be religious or might NOT be. Atheism says nothing
about their religion.
> Nice try though.
Yes, it was a nice try on your part but it didn't work.
> For further on this point, perhaps you could read the earlier parts of
> the thread instead of jumping in here at the end.
>
> Terrell
>
>
--
http://www.myspace.com/prabbit237
http://www.myyearbook.com/prabbit237
R. Dean
significance for Christians since there no Christian scientist
either past or present contented with just saying "God did it".
Certainly Christians such as Newton, Linnaeus, Pasteur, Kelvin
Mendel etc. etc. were not satisfied with just saying "God did it".
So, obviously "God did it" is an atheist fiction, not a Christian
quittance.
>Jim
James Beck
rd...@bellsouth.net says...
You may find 'a' christian that isn't saying it, but christianity sure
is, and there are PLENTY of christians that are saying it too.
How did life start, god did it.
How did we evolve, we didn't, god did it.
How did the universe get here, god did it.
Rainbows, god did it.
<Place your favorite item or worse natural disaster here>, god did it.
It is only when those scientists had the guts to go against church dogma
did mankind take steps forward. It has only been as the church's power
waned that the golden age of science began. If christianity really had
its' way, we would be living in mud shacks, burning witches, and dying
at the ripe old age of 24.
Sure, there are plenty of christian scientists that know that the bible
isn't a science text, but they don't to have quite the voice that the
dogmatic wackos have. Besides, I didn't limit my comment to christian
scientists, did I? Maybe they need to stand up in church a little more
often and educate those ignorant masses sitting in there with them.
Jim
Kelsey Bjarnason
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mbdlf5-...@spankywork.localhost.net...
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:32:43 -0500, SongBookz wrote:
>>
>>> Atheism qualifies as religion under word's, "religion," definition:
>>>
>>> - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
>>> universe
>>
>> Whoops, sorry, you dropped the ball there. The one key aspect of
>> atheism is that it is precisely about *not* having a belief.
>>
>> Nice try, though.
>>
>>
> "A-theism" is not equal to "a-religion."
No, it's equal to "a theism", the lack of belief in deities.
Which is *exactly* as I said. It is precisely about *not* having a
belief, in contradiction to your assertion that, I quote, "A set of
**beliefs**..." [emphasis added]
Getting it? Got it? Good.
Free Lunch
wrote:
I'm glad that you agree that the confidence men at AIG, CRS, ICR, and DI
are not scientists.
SongBookz
"A-theism" refers only to "without theism (or deity," a synonym).. it does
not refer to religion. There are atheist religions such as Zen or atheism.
Terrell
Charles & Mambo Duckman
> "A-theism" refers only to "without theism (or deity," a synonym).. it
> does not refer to religion. There are atheist religions such as Zen or
> atheism.
"Interesting". Do you also print your own currency in this world of yours,
or are your powers limited to misinterpreting the English language?
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
Mike
> SongBookz wrote:
>>
>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:mbdlf5-...@spankywork.localhost.net...
>>> [snips]
>>>
>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:32:43 -0500, SongBookz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Atheism qualifies as religion under word's, "religion," definition:
>>>>
>>>> - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
>>>> universe
>>>
>>> Whoops, sorry, you dropped the ball there. The one key aspect of
>>> atheism
>>> is that it is precisely about *not* having a belief.
>>>
>>> Nice try, though.
>>>
>>
>> "A-theism" is not equal to "a-religion."
>
> Nor is it equal to "religion." Just like "bald" (a-hair) is equal to
I was missing a "not" in there. It should have read "Just like "bald"
(a-hair) is not equal to "fat" or "thin.""
beelzebub
> TUPELO, Miss., -- A federal court of appeals has ruled in favor of an
> inmate who claimed that Wisconsin prison officials violated his rights
> under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they
> refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
>
> The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prison officials erred
> because they “did not treat atheism as a ‘religion.’” The court said,
> “Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion
>
> belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso
> v. Watkins, the Court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
>
> in the USA. More ammo for you to use against those who doubt your FAITH!
>
I don't doubt their faith for a moment. This ruling will help to
protect the rights of people of all religions, not just atheism.
Hatter
> "SeppoP" <seppo_pietikai...@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
>
> news:68ko16F...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>> TUPELO, Miss., -- A federal court of appeals has ruled in favor of an
> >>>> inmate who claimed that Wisconsin prison officials violated his rights
> >>>> under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they
> >>>> refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
>
> >>>> The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prison officials erred
> >>>> because they “did not treat atheism as a ‘religion.’” The court said,
> >>>> start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief
> >>>> in a supreme being.”
>
> >>>> Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family
> >>>> Association Center for Law & Policy, described the court’s ruling as “a
> >>>> sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”
>
> >>>> “Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,”
> >>>> stated Fahling.
>
> >>>> belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso
> >>>> v. Watkins, the Court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
>
>
> >>>> Yes, atheism is a religion and is recognized as such by Federal Courts
> >>>> in the USA. More ammo for you to use against those who doubt your
> >>>> FAITH!
>
> >>> such is just another indication of the mentality of sickness that
> >>> permeates society today. Atheism is a mode of existence, a means of
> >>> living ones life free of unjustified restraint.
>
> >> Rod,
>
> >> atheists belong to the religious cult; many do. Those that do promote
> >> their religion and speak against other religions just like
> >> fundamentalists from other religions do. Atheism involves self
> >> worship, man worship, and systems worship.
>
> > not playing flute?
>
> Very weak analogy. If you don't play the flute, you're not a flutist - you
> may or may not still be a musician.
>
> "Atheist" means "without Theism" (deity is a synonym). It does not mean
> "without religion." Zen is an example of a religion that is also atheist.
>
> Atheism qualifies as religion under word's, "religion," definition:
>
> - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
> with a "big bang," life arose through evolution and natural selection, and
> so forth (and some non-atheists have similiar beliefs). The fact that
> everyone has beliefs concerning the "cause, nature, and purpose of the
> universe," indicates that everyone has a religion.
>
Atheism is not a religion, nor is theism.
Hatter
> Masculist wrote:
>
> > What are you talking about? If you were religious and hung around
> > atheists as much as I have, you'd think they were fundementalists.
> > Ironic I know, but true. It goes to show you that humans can't exist
> > without some kind of belief. The more they deny it the more they look
> > like fundies
>
> > Tom
>
> Wow! That is one of the dumbest statements I've read in this group.
>
While dmb, it hardly compares to the likes of Chung, duke, Kenny
Pangborn, and J. I guess you could add Mark Earnest, but hes just
having a laugh.
Hatter
James Beck
lu...@nofreelunch.us says...
I wonder what Galileo would say.
The "God did it" dogma just about got him killed.
Copernicus delayed the release of his book over fears of church
retribution. Newton had a long running feud with church "scientists"
over the nature of light.
Jim
Kelsey Bjarnason
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jmapf5-...@spankywork.localhost.net...
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:32:57 -0500, SongBookz wrote:
>>
>>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mbdlf5-...@spankywork.localhost.net...
>>>> [snips]
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:32:43 -0500, SongBookz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Atheism qualifies as religion under word's, "religion," definition:
>>>>>
>>>>> - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
>>>>> universe
>>>>
>>>> Whoops, sorry, you dropped the ball there. The one key aspect of
>>>> atheism is that it is precisely about *not* having a belief.
>>>>
>>>> Nice try, though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "A-theism" is not equal to "a-religion."
>>
>> No, it's equal to "a theism", the lack of belief in deities.
>>
>> Which is *exactly* as I said. It is precisely about *not* having a
>> belief, in contradiction to your assertion that, I quote, "A set of
>> **beliefs**..." [emphasis added]
>>
>>
> "A-theism" refers only to "without theism (or deity," a synonym).. it
> does not refer to religion.
Let us try this again.
Theism means the presence of a belief.
Atheism means the absence of that belief.
That's it. It is *nothing* more than the *absence* of a particular
belief, or type of belief. It has no other significant features; it does
not imply liberalism or conservatism, communism or capitalism, being
white or black or green or orange or polka-dotted. It is the lack of a
particular belief.
Since you define religion *as* a belief, or as being about or including a
particular set of beliefs, it follows that atheism *cannot* be a
religion, by your own definition, as nothing about atheism implies any
sort of belief whatsoever, let alone a particular belief.
Thus by your own "thinking", atheism is not a religion.
Which part of this are you having the difficulties with?
SongBookz
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:04:15 -0500, SongBookz wrote:
>
>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jmapf5-...@spankywork.localhost.net...
>>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:32:57 -0500, SongBookz wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:mbdlf5-...@spankywork.localhost.net...
>>>>> [snips]
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:32:43 -0500, SongBookz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Atheism qualifies as religion under word's, "religion," definition:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
>>>>>> universe
>>>>>
>>>>> Whoops, sorry, you dropped the ball there. The one key aspect of
>>>>> atheism is that it is precisely about *not* having a belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice try, though.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> "A-theism" is not equal to "a-religion."
>>>
>>> No, it's equal to "a theism", the lack of belief in deities.
>>>
>>> Which is *exactly* as I said. It is precisely about *not* having a
>>> belief, in contradiction to your assertion that, I quote, "A set of
>>> **beliefs**..." [emphasis added]
>>>
>>>
>> "A-theism" refers only to "without theism (or deity," a synonym).. it
>> does not refer to religion.
>
> Let us try this again.
>
> Theism means the presence of a belief.
> Atheism means the absence of that belief.
Incorrect - "Theism" is from the Greek, "Theos" meaning "god."
"A-theism" equals "a-theos," or "without god."
It says nothing about religion.
A god is not a requirement for religion - religion is simply a set of
beliefs concerning "the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."
Whether you believe the universe was created by a god or several gods or
whether you believe it was resulted from a Big Bang - you have the basic
requirements of a religion. Which is one reason the court was correcting in
classifying atheism as a religion.
Terrell
DanielSan
And the "-ism" portion is defined as:
a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group
>
> "A-theism" equals "a-theos," or "without god."
Actually, "a-theos-ism" or "without god belief"
>
> It says nothing about religion.
>
> A god is not a requirement for religion - religion is simply a set of
> beliefs concerning "the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."
Also incorrect.
Religion is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature,
and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a
superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of
human affairs."
>
> Whether you believe the universe was created by a god or several gods or
> whether you believe it was resulted from a Big Bang - you have the basic
> requirements of a religion. Which is one reason the court was
> correcting in classifying atheism as a religion.
And you have just destroyed any definition of religious belief. Atheism
has no deity, no doctrine of beliefs, no sets of practices.
It is merely a lack of belief in deities.
Just like tall people are not a religion.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for *
* a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord *
* doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked *
* Him to forgive me." --Emo Philips *
****************************************************
SongBookz
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pJudnbZDotqpF7bV...@comcast.com...
"Ism is "a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice"
"Doctrine" is a synonym of "teaching." It is a doctrine (or teaching) of
atheism that there is/are no god(s).
>>
>> "A-theism" equals "a-theos," or "without god."
>
> Actually, "a-theos-ism" or "without god belief"
>
No ... "a-theos-ism" or "doctrine of no god."
Dictionary.com: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
American Heritage Dictionary: 2. The doctrine that there is no God or
gods.
WorldNET: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
>>
>> It says nothing about religion.
>>
>> A god is not a requirement for religion - religion is simply a set of
>> beliefs concerning "the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."
>
> Also incorrect.
>
> Religion is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and
> purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a
> superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
> observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of
> human affairs."
>
"esp." is "especially" not "exclusively;" "usually" and "often," not
"always."
>>
>> Whether you believe the universe was created by a god or several gods or
>> whether you believe it was resulted from a Big Bang - you have the basic
>> requirements of a religion. Which is one reason the court was correcting
>> in classifying atheism as a religion.
>
> And you have just destroyed any definition of religious belief. Atheism
As to the definition of "religion," it is unharmed. That everyone has a
heart does not destroy the word, "heart," lung, "lungs," or eyes, "eyes,"
and neither everyone having a religion destroy the word, "religion."
> has no deity, no doctrine of beliefs, no sets of practices.
>
Atheism is founded on the doctrine "there are/is no gods." Some other
doctrines commonly, but not necessarily universally, espoused by those who
identify themselves as atheists are "evolution," Big Bang, natural
selection.
Dictionary.com: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
American Heritage Dictionary: 2. The doctrine that there is no God or
gods.
WorldNET: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
> It is merely a lack of belief in deities.
>
> Just like tall people are not a religion.
>
Logical fallacy, just because all tall people have a religion does not make
tallness a religion unless tallness is "a set of beliefs concerning the
cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."
Terrell
DanielSan
Therefore, everything that is talked about is an -ism. Context, people.
Context.
>>>
>>> "A-theism" equals "a-theos," or "without god."
>>
>> Actually, "a-theos-ism" or "without god belief"
>>
>
> No ... "a-theos-ism" or "doctrine of no god."
>
> Dictionary.com: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
> American Heritage Dictionary: 2. The doctrine that there is no God or
> gods.
> WorldNET: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God]
Why did you neglect the definitions that said "disbelief in gods"?
>
>>>
>>> It says nothing about religion.
>>>
>>> A god is not a requirement for religion - religion is simply a set of
>>> beliefs concerning "the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."
>>
>> Also incorrect.
>>
>> Religion is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature,
>> and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a
>> superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
>> observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct
>> of human affairs."
>>
>
> "esp." is "especially" not "exclusively;" "usually" and "often," not
> "always."
And atheism is not about the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe.
Therefore, not a religion.
>
>>>
>>> Whether you believe the universe was created by a god or several gods
>>> or whether you believe it was resulted from a Big Bang - you have the
>>> basic requirements of a religion. Which is one reason the court was
>>> correcting in classifying atheism as a religion.
>>
>> And you have just destroyed any definition of religious belief. Atheism
>
> As to the definition of "religion," it is unharmed. That everyone has a
> heart does not destroy the word, "heart," lung, "lungs," or eyes,
> "eyes," and neither everyone having a religion destroy the word,
> "religion."
>
>> has no deity, no doctrine of beliefs, no sets of practices.
>>
>
> Atheism is founded on the doctrine "there are/is no gods." Some other
> doctrines commonly, but not necessarily universally, espoused by those
> who identify themselves as atheists are "evolution," Big Bang, natural
> selection.
But those are not properties of atheism.
>
> Dictionary.com: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
> American Heritage Dictionary: 2. The doctrine that there is no God or
> gods.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
> WorldNET: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
>
>> It is merely a lack of belief in deities.
>>
>> Just like tall people are not a religion.
>>
>
> Logical fallacy, just because all tall people have a religion does not
> make tallness a religion unless tallness is "a set of beliefs concerning
> the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."
And atheism is not a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and
purpose of the universe. Just like tallness.