Atheists

[DrugBa11ad]

Odin is probably PISSED with all the attention going to someone else

Oh no worries, I kick it with Odin and Thor too.

 

[Jokerman]

So what exactly is at this university that isn't available anywhere but it's museum? Why is it so secretive

It's Alien Technology, man. HOW can it be secretive if it's at a university? There's nothing secretive about it, unless one has religiously blinded himself to it. To such a person, it's true, it will seem secretive and hidden. It's all actually well known to those whose minds are not hiding from it.

And did you read what I said: Just to name one. I just named one source of this evidence that a professional can find all over. This place happens to have a good selection of fossils that trace the transition between whales and hoofed mammals. More than refutes your whole premise by itself.

Do you really think im stupid...

I'll look the other way for that one

You're trying to dig your way out of the hole you put yourself in

Hey, it was in that hole that I found the fossil evidence for evolution...

located at a place i dont have access to

I don't know where u are. Would you know what you were looking at, anyway?

Are you from michigan?

No.

have you been to this university?

Yes, the museum.

these infamous fossils that could very well make Evolution no longer a theory?

Here we go again. There's no such thing as only or just a theory. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theories try to explain and interpret the fact of evolution. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a theory that tries to explain the fact of evolution. A theory can never become a fact, it can only best explain a fact.

Of course, I know you don't know evolution is a fact. You don't know that new species of plants are coming out of old species right now? Forget fossils. Right now evolution is taking place for any botonist to see.

 

[XIAN]

Dude, get the fuck out. If your not going to actually participate in the conversation without spitting rhetoric bible verses, shut up.

And how does saying that spitting out rhetoric bible verses is pointless give athiest a bad name? Explain that please.

How did my post prove I was an ass? Becuase someone felt it neccesary to provide us with some religious quote expecting it to hold any importance? That is the example of a religiously brainwashed person. Someone who argues for the bible by using quotes from it. That is the person that most athiests shun.

And it's obvious you didn't read my whole post, my post made much more of a contribution to this thread then either yours or that kid who put in the religious quote.

Not only that, but I do respect HIS opinion. I don't respect him throwing religious quotes at me. I don't respect that at all. So had he simply stated his opinion, I would not have said anything. I didn't disrespect his opinion at all.

Whoa chill out I was just explaining that because of verses like THAT religion is a great thing, whether true or false. Psalm 23 is a beautiful verse and you didn't even read it. That was no argument, that was an explanation of WHY people choose to have faith. Who are you to tell me what to post?

This is my post from an earlier topic:
http://www.streethop.com/forum/showthread.php?p=360508#post360508

This is a very tough question. If you're looking for one of us to answer your questions, which we can't know, then you will be disappointed. But if you want to hear my personal belief,

I think that God doesn't expect us to know him, and read the bible or go to church or anything. He just expects us to live in harmony with the rest of his creation. I think that the job of us is to find how that can be done, and a lot of these evangelists are trying to help us do that.

For example, almost 100% of people who don't look at the world with peace are going to be unhappy. They will want to start a war or hurt others, and as a result of this war or conflict, they will be troubled. Human nature, which is created by God, is destined to go after happiness. The secret of happiness is compassion. When we help each other, we are actually helping ourselves, because we are liking ourselves and then others more-generally feeling better about everyone. That's harmony, and I think that God wants us to do that. Pain on earth is something that will push us to go even further to help others. When you start seeing things correctly, even someone who murders your whole family can become your best friend. The Dalia Lama said that he is so grateful for his enemies, because they have shown him the strength and limitlessness of his heart. That means that love is something that can be given to everyone.

So religion is something, a tool, that will show us how to attain harmony, and even those who don't see it can be shown it.

And this is my belief of God in a short form.

~peace~

SO by NO means am I a fundamentalist or ANYTHING like that. The one who started this topic was asking for clarity between religion and atheism and I was providing the reason why religion is good for people. The psalm I posted (as an EXAMPLE) is known worldwide as a source of comfort, and I don't even read the bible that often, and I almost NEVER go to church. I appreciate all religions. Why would an atheist shun me?

But listen man I'ma let that go. But for real give me some of that Greek shit I know it's improved your life right?

And how do you figure me to be a "kid"? I mean I've been here since 01, and compared to you I'm ancient.

~peace~

 

[Jocka]

Anyone who comes across an animation with the description "A commercial President Bush would run if campaigning against Jesus Christ" on a site called FunnyHub.com and thinks for a second that it's at all informative should not be allowed on message boards lest they spread their idiocy. I'd like to think most people can judge the credibility of the sources they cite.

You'd be suprised the stupid shit people tend to believe off the internet.

I get what you're saying. You're saying that self-deception is healthy. You're saying that it's better to live a lie and be happy than face up to the cold hard truth.

I disagree.

No. Because religion isn't "a lie" to that person. To you, religion may be just one big ball of lies wrapped up around a character known as the "creator". But to others, religion is the only way of life. It's everything to them. Not only is it not a lie to them but it's THE ONLY truth. That doesn't make it self-deception anymore. "The only truth" can't decieve them.

 

[Illuminattile]

You'd be suprised the stupid shit people tend to believe off the internet.

I know, just look at some of the sites people post whenever the Illuminati/the Freemasons come up.

No. Because religion isn't "a lie" to that person. To you, religion may be just one big ball of lies wrapped up around a character known as the "creator". But to others, religion is the only way of life. It's everything to them. Not only is it not a lie to them but it's THE ONLY truth. That doesn't make it self-deception anymore. "The only truth" can't decieve them.

Maybe it's because I can't even fathom holding such beliefs, but I think a lot, if not most, religious people know deep down that their beliefs are probably wrong.

 

[not really ken]

it's the yin and the yang. black and white. sunrise and sunset. night and day. positive and negative. young and old. dead and alive. everything in this universe has an opposite. .

the earth and the heavens, the world and the hereafter!

 

[Illuminattile]

the earth and the heavens, the world and the hereafter!

ken and Illuminattile.

 

[AnarchistFunk]

if you're an atheist, then you believe when someone dies, they just cease to exist. so therefore, they're not suffering, and there is no need to mourn.

who said that?

i dont believe in god

however i know this hasn't been my first spiritual experiance and nor will it be my last

 

[Jocka]

I know, just look at some of the sites people post whenever the Illuminati/the Freemasons come up.


Maybe it's because I can't even fathom holding such beliefs, but I think a lot, if not most, religious people know deep down that their beliefs are probably wrong.

yesss

No. Deep down they have their doubts and questions but most don't let those doubts surface or cross their minds for too long befores deciding "It's unholy to doubt" or something. Most don't have the option to no believe. They are told what and when to believe.

 

[Jacob]

Why do you think evolutionists tossed Darwins thoery of slow gradual evolution in the myth files and introduced the even more rediculous theory of "Macroevolution" which states thats animals dont evolve over long periods of time but instead they give birth to whole different species? to make up for the absolute lack of intermediate fossils

You're talking about the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. It doesn't say that animals "give birth to whole different species." It says that transitional fossils are rare not only because fossilization is rare, but because species that are well-adapted to a niche will remain unchanged -- hence, equilibrium -- for upwards of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years and then when macroevolution does occur it generally takes place in a geologically instantaneous period of time, which is a misleading statement because a "geological instant" is actually tens of thousands of years.

The late Stephen J. Gould was upset that creationists "hijacked" punk eek, and pointed out this quote from his 1982 paper on macromutation: "Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory of macromutation…it is not a theory of any genetic process…It is a theory about larger-scale patterns-the geometry of speciation in geological time. As with ecologically rapid modes of speciation, punctuated equilibrium welcomes macromutation as a source for the initiation of species: the faster the better. But punctuated equilibrium clearly does not require or imply macromutation, since it was formulated as the expected geological consequence of Mayrian allopatry."

 

[Duke]

You're talking about the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. It doesn't say that animals "give birth to whole different species." It says that transitional fossils are rare not only because fossilization is rare, but because species that are well-adapted to a niche will remain unchanged -- hence, equilibrium -- for upwards of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years and then when macroevolution does occur it generally takes place in a geologically instantaneous period of time, which is a misleading statement because a "geological instant" is actually tens of thousands of years.

The late Stephen J. Gould was upset that creationists "hijacked" punk eek, and pointed out this quote from his 1982 paper on macromutation: "Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory of macromutation…it is not a theory of any genetic process…It is a theory about larger-scale patterns-the geometry of speciation in geological time. As with ecologically rapid modes of speciation, punctuated equilibrium welcomes macromutation as a source for the initiation of species: the faster the better. But punctuated equilibrium clearly does not require or imply macromutation, since it was formulated as the expected geological consequence of Mayrian allopatry."

Ha, dropping the knowledge, eh? Nice, where you been, jacob? Ain't seen you in a long time.

good to have ya back tho :thumb:

 

[Illuminattile]

[Stuff about Punctuating someone's Equilibrium...]

Who's this Jacob guy? I like him.

 

[Jocka]

You're talking about the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. It doesn't say that animals "give birth to whole different species." It says that transitional fossils are rare not only because fossilization is rare, but because species that are well-adapted to a niche will remain unchanged -- hence, equilibrium -- for upwards of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years and then when macroevolution does occur it generally takes place in a geologically instantaneous period of time, which is a misleading statement because a "geological instant" is actually tens of thousands of years.

The late Stephen J. Gould was upset that creationists "hijacked" punk eek, and pointed out this quote from his 1982 paper on macromutation: "Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory of macromutation…it is not a theory of any genetic process…It is a theory about larger-scale patterns-the geometry of speciation in geological time. As with ecologically rapid modes of speciation, punctuated equilibrium welcomes macromutation as a source for the initiation of species: the faster the better. But punctuated equilibrium clearly does not require or imply macromutation, since it was formulated as the expected geological consequence of Mayrian allopatry."

... what he said.

 

[rtyfghvbn]

who said that?

i dont believe in god

however i know this hasn't been my first spiritual experiance and nor will it be my last

well then you're not atheist. you may be agnostic or scientologist, but if you believe in spiritual experiences, you're not atheist.

 

[Illuminattile]

well then you're not atheist. you may be agnostic or scientologist, but if you believe in spiritual experiences, you're not atheist.

Atheism is the nonbelief in a god or gods. You could feasibly believe in reincarnation without believing in a god.

 

[Khaled]

you can have spiritual experiences without believing in God. It doesn't have anything to do with religion.

 

[rtyfghvbn]

Atheism is the nonbelief in a god or gods. You could feasibly believe in reincarnation without believing in a god.

feasibly, yes. you're right...it wasn't 100% correct to say that athiest CAN'T believe in spirits.

however, in just about every religion or belief system it is stated that the GOD always creates the spirit. and while there are arguements for physical creationism in both a religious and scientific sense, there is really no explanation as to HOW someone would attain a spirit, unless given to them by a god.

 

[Minardi]

I love to read how some people believe we are just empty shells without feelings, morals or rules if we dont have a religion basically we are robots to some people, if we dont have a book to tell us how to behave and feel. Strangely animals doesnt need these advises to function in a group.

Religions to me are nothing but ways to control people, and keep them away from asking questions, quite clever move if you ask me, because the method has proved itself for thousands of years, and worked successfully, up untill now.

And why is is method so used? simply because a "God" isnt something to fuck around with, he/she/it has super powers and nothing he/she/it does is wrong. perfect way to make your code of conduct 110% bulletproof. A leader in flesh wouldnt have the same impact.

 

[DrugBa11ad]

^Dude just spit some real shit.

but I got one question, what do you mean by this...

because the method has proved itself for thousands of years, and worked successfully, up untill now.

Cuz it seems that religion is still prominant in almost every major society in the world. Especially here in America. Look at the conservative christian Bush supports. Still a very real power.

 

[Illuminattile]

it seems that religion is still prominant in almost every major society in the world. Especially here in America. Look at the conservative christian Bush supports. Still a very real power.

America is still very religious, but Europe is quite secular. Obviously there are religious people in Europe, but not to the extent there is in America.

People are more willing to question religion now.