Atheism: Your Views

[Luther073082]

I was an atheist once.

Nothing about atheism makes you any worse then me. If they respect me, I'll respect them.

I think most people are fooled by a media that would prefer everyone be atheist. I know I was.

 

[8462]

I have never been an athiest but I have known my fair share of them. I grew up as a Christian... I never was influenced by Athiesm....

I had a guy I worked with a while ago that was a professed athiest... He was no different from me except that his faith did not reflect that Of God...

I felt horrible because as a Christian I should stand out to others as being different....

This really bothered me...

Do you think that this is something that all Christians should work on in their daily lives?

 

[WileyCoyote]

The existence of all living things doesn't point to evolution. It took a lot of scientific study to get there.

It amazes me that people will assume that Christians are ignorant of Science if they don't accept evolution. There is nothing scientific about evolution. Evolution is a religion surviving only on tax dollars. Evolution still has not found the 'missing link' that connects the theory that reptiles evolved into birds. National Geographic had to pay $80,000 for a fake fossil in order to prove this 'theory'. It was later proven to be a fraudulent fossil. So they still don't have any evidence for a dinosaur or reptile evolving into a bird.

And Heackel's embryo theory was proven wrong 120 years ago. Heackel was tried as a fraud and prosecuted. But his 'embryo theory' is still in children's textbooks nationwide. Why? Do evolutionists have to use lies and already refuted arguments to support their relig...er...I mean theory?

 

[WileyCoyote]

Oh, and Atheists don't bother me. But Anti-theists bother me.

 

[HannahBanana]

It amazes me that people will assume that Christians are ignorant of Science if they don't accept evolution. There is nothing scientific about evolution. Evolution is a religion surviving only on tax dollars. Evolution still has not found the 'missing link' that connects the theory that reptiles evolved into birds. National Geographic had to pay $80,000 for a fake fossil in order to prove this 'theory'. It was later proven to be a fraudulent fossil. So they still don't have any evidence for a dinosaur or reptile evolving into a bird.

And Heackel's embryo theory was proven wrong 120 years ago. Heackel was tried as a fraud and prosecuted. But his 'embryo theory' is still in children's textbooks nationwide. Why? Do evolutionists have to use lies and already refuted arguments to support their relig...er...I mean theory?

Have you ever actually studied evolution, Wiley (and no, watching YouTube videos of Kent Hovind or of other creationists does not count as "studying evolution")?

 

[HannahBanana]

I was an atheist once.

Nothing about atheism makes you any worse then me. If they respect me, I'll respect them.

I think most people are fooled by a media that would prefer everyone be atheist. I know I was.

Why exactly do you think that the media would prefer that everyone was an atheist?

 

[Markus6]

It amazes me that people will assume that Christians are ignorant of Science if they don't accept evolution. There is nothing scientific about evolution. Evolution is a religion surviving only on tax dollars. Evolution still has not found the 'missing link' that connects the theory that reptiles evolved into birds. National Geographic had to pay $80,000 for a fake fossil in order to prove this 'theory'. It was later proven to be a fraudulent fossil. So they still don't have any evidence for a dinosaur or reptile evolving into a bird.

The existence of fake fossils does not dismiss the evidence of all the real ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Diapsid_reptiles_to_birds

And Heackel's embryo theory was proven wrong 120 years ago. Heackel was tried as a fraud and prosecuted. But his 'embryo theory' is still in children's textbooks nationwide. Why? Do evolutionists have to use lies and already refuted arguments to support their relig...er...I mean theory?

Which textbooks?

 

[WileyCoyote]

Have you ever actually studied evolution, Wiley (and no, watching YouTube videos of Kent Hovind or of other creationists does not count as "studying evolution")?

I'm reading a couple of books right now about the subject. They may not be books you would pick up off of the shelf though.

 

[HannahBanana]

I'm reading a couple of books right now about the subject. They may not be books you would pick up off of the shelf though.

Are they written by creationists?

 

[Luther073082]

Why exactly do you think that the media would prefer that everyone was an atheist?

Look at the way they report on Christians actually practicing their faith. Look at the types of shows they put on TV discouraging any sense of human morals beyond whats legally required. (And sometimes not even that). Look at how they make fun of people who try to remain celibate til marriage. (And thats not just a Christian thing you know)

Look how they report on the insane and stupid statements of a bunch of incompetant heretics who use for God to get themselves rich and get republican votes such as Pat Robertson. They present them as the Christian view of the world.

Look how they present certain views or doctrines of churchs presenting no context or understanding. The media convinces people that our view of the world is that "God hates homosexuals" which is a ridiculous heresy.

Look at the leanings and views of most people that own major media corporations. Or even the views and leanings of journalists.

Do you realize that when they talk to "Christians" they always find the most extremest nutbag, ignorant Christian they can find instead of talking to someone with an IQ over 30?

All this time when they report on the offensive, and stupid statements of people like Pat Robertson they ignore the statements of leading atheists who go around to every college campus in the country telling students that Christians are idoits.

Also they love the hypocracies when some yell and scream pastor out there hates gays but turns out to be one. But notice they don't cover the fact that humans who yell cry and scream about how bad the poor have it but give far less to charity then conservative Christians even after adjusted for income.

 

[HannahBanana]

Look at the way they report on Christians actually practicing their faith. Look at the types of shows they put on TV discouraging any sense of human morals beyond whats legally required. (And sometimes not even that). Look at how they make fun of people who try to remain celibate til marriage. (And thats not just a Christian thing you know)

Look how they report on the insane and stupid statements of a bunch of incompetant heretics who use for God to get themselves rich and get republican votes such as Pat Robertson. They present them as the Christian view of the world.

Look how they present certain views or doctrines of churchs presenting no context or understanding. The media convinces people that our view of the world is that "God hates homosexuals" which is a ridiculous heresy.

Look at the leanings and views of most people that own major media corporations. Or even the views and leanings of journalists.

Do you realize that when they talk to "Christians" they always find the most extremest nutbag, ignorant Christian they can find instead of talking to someone with an IQ over 30?

All this time when they report on the offensive, and stupid statements of people like Pat Robertson they ignore the statements of leading atheists who go around to every college campus in the country telling students that Christians are idoits.

Also they love the hypocracies when some yell and scream pastor out there hates gays but turns out to be one. But notice they don't cover the fact that humans who yell cry and scream about how bad the poor have it but give far less to charity then conservative Christians even after adjusted for income.

Got any actual proof of any of those claims?

 

[WileyCoyote]

The existence of fake fossils does not dismiss the evidence of all the real ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Diapsid
_reptiles_to_birds

The fossil National Geographic paid for was created by a 'fake fossil' black market in China. China has an active 'fake fossil' industry. The same country that sells the organs of executed criminals to us Americans for pennies on the dollar. Thanks to fossils like the Archaeoraptor, this fake fossil market was discovered. This fact is enough to put all of these 'fossils' in doubt until proven otherwise.

Which textbooks?

Nebraska textbooks, California textbooks, Texas textbooks, and other ones nationwide. Like I said these textbooks are using a lie proven wrong over a century ago to support evolution. This does not make Darwin's 'theory' look good.

 

[WileyCoyote]

Are they written by creationists?

Yes, they are. One by a former Atheist.

 

[Luther073082]

Got any actual proof of any of those claims?

Alot of it is stuff you notice by paying attention, but I'll see what I can give you.

http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2182

 

[HannahBanana]

Yes, they are. One by a former Atheist.

And you expect those books to be unbiased and factually accurate, why, exactly?

 

[HannahBanana]

Alot of it is stuff you notice by paying attention, but I'll see what I can give you.

The last claim can be read here.

http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2182

You expect me to trust an obviously-biased site (it's called "JesusCreed" for goodness sakes!), why, exactly?

Oh, and I asked you for proof because I've never noticed the mainstream media doing any of those things. The mainstream media pays plenty of attention to religious folk. The recent visit by the Pope is a great example of that: he got TONS of attention from the mainstream media.

As for the claims of the media promoting immorality, what makes the morals of the Bible somehow more "true" than any other morals out there? Just because the mainstream media doesn't cater to the Bible doesn't mean that they're promoting immorality.

 

[WileyCoyote]

And you expect those books to be unbiased and factually accurate, why, exactly?

Well if they didn't cite their sources and provide evidence, I wouldn't even consider what they say. But they do.

As for the 'biased' thing. Every Creationist has a motive. Every Evolutionist has a motive. When evidence is presented, you have to address the evidence given. It doesn't matter who offered it or why.

 

[Luther073082]

Got any actual proof of any of those claims?

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

 

[Luther073082]

You expect me to trust an obviously-biased site (it's called "JesusCreed" for goodness sakes!), why, exactly?

Ignore that one it wasn't about what I thought it was anyways.

But bias does not indicate a lack of truth. It indicates who's going to publish it and who's not.

Oh, and I asked you for proof because I've never noticed the mainstream media doing any of those things. The mainstream media pays plenty of attention to religious folk. The recent visit by the Pope is a great example of that: he got TONS of attention from the mainstream media.

But attention does not mean its always good attetion.

As for the claims of the media promoting immorality, what makes the morals of the Bible somehow more "true" than any other morals out there? Just because the mainstream media doesn't cater to the Bible doesn't mean that they're promoting immorality.

Oh so meaningless sex isn't immoral? The media loves causal sex.

Divorce is not immoral? It breaks families but the media is out there saying. . . "Hey its ok to have "starter marriages." You know where you commit to another person to stay with them for your whole life but never actually mean it.

And its not that the media does not promote them. Its that the media demotes them.

Look at how derided virgins over the age of 20 are on TV.

And the minute that someone suggests that one parent familes arn't good they are painted as hateful.

 

[HannahBanana]

Well if they didn't cite their sources and provide evidence, I wouldn't even consider what they say. But they do.

As for the 'biased' thing. Every Creationist has a motive. Every Evolutionist has a motive. When evidence is presented, you have to address the evidence given. It doesn't matter who offered it or why.

What motive do evolutionists have, beyond wanting to learn more about our world? Do you honestly think that evolutionists are out to disprove creationism? Sure, some are (like Richard Dawkins *sigh* darn him and his rudeness!), but most aren't. Most evolutionists are simply interested in science. Why not trust them, then?