Atheism: Your Views

[HannahBanana]

But attention does not mean its always good attetion.

Care to provide me with some examples of how the Pope (or any religious figure) has gotten "bad attention" from the mainstream media?

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

No, it's not immoral, not unless you choose to think that it's immoral. Personally, I think that casual sex is fine, as long as you're safe about it.

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.

No, divorce isn't always immoral. Sometimes divorce is completely necessary. Unless you'd rather that women with abusive husbands stayed with their husbands, that is...

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

So? The mainstream media isn't supposed to cater specifically to Christians and to the morals of the Bible. They're supposed to cater to all Americans, and not all Americans are Christians.

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

There are plenty of older virgins on TV. You just choose to ignore them because you'd rather pretend that you're being persecuted.

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

That's because there's no logical reason to say that one-parent families aren't good.

 

[Rhamiel]

Hannah,

And I think something is wrong with your logic as well, since you can't see how the existence of all living things on this earth points to evolution, rather than creation.

As for what I think of atheists, I think they're a very intelligent bunch of people who have a healthy appetite for knowledge and who realize that science is not a bad thing and that science shouldn't be feared, like some Christians think it should. But then again, I myself am an atheist, so my opinion is a bit biased.

I believe in theistic eveolution, not young earth creationism or intelligent design. I am very pro-sciense when sciense stays to science, darwinism states that genetic mutation is random, well there is no way we can test if it is random or controlled by a higher intelligence, you can not run tests on that, so by its very nature parts of Dawinian evolution are unscientific, thats cool, but then it becomes a belief system and not a scientific theory.

 

[WileyCoyote]

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?

From what I've observed, many evolutionists (not all) use lies to support their theories. I'm not against using truth. But it makes me mad when they take a drawing by a man convicted of being a fraud and put it in textbooks as truth when it was disproven over 100 years ago.

You want to talk about biased. Creation Science isn't allowed in the classrooms, but Evolutionary Science is. Kids are getting a one sided view and not being exposed to both sides so they can make a decision for themselves. That is just not right.

Hannah, I have no doubt that there are many Atheists and Evolutionists who are nice people. I'm not against respectful individuals. I AM against lies being used to support a theory though. I AM against prejudice. (Evolutionary and Religious prejudice) I'll trust Evolution when they offer real, testable evidence to support their theory.

Oh, and I agree with you. Darn that Richard Dawkins.

 

[Rhamiel]

hannah, love your avatar, since this thread is about atheists and not evolution lol, I thought I would mention something I respect about many athiests I know,
they are more involved in political abuses around the world, almost none of the christians I know are speaking out agianst China getting the Olympics, the fact that we support a nation that violates human rights on such a leval makes me sick.

 

[Luther073082]

Care to provide me with some examples of how the Pope (or any religious figure) has gotten "bad attention" from the mainstream media?

During the papal election, the only thing they covered was if the new pope was gonna ordain women or remove celibacy from the Latin Rite.

Yet, no matter who the pope is this is not going to happen. They where begging for a Pope to follow their own bias.

No, it's not immoral, not unless you choose to think that it's immoral. Personally, I think that casual sex is fine, as long as you're safe about it.

And do what with the mistakes when the contraception doesn't work? Abort them?

No, divorce isn't always immoral. Sometimes divorce is completely necessary. Unless you'd rather that women with abusive husbands stayed with their husbands, that is...

That isn't what I'm talking about. Almost every church teaches that abuse is a reason for divorce as is adultry.

However there are articles about "starter marriages" and they talk about them like its ok.

So? The mainstream media isn't supposed to cater specifically to Christians and to the morals of the Bible. They're supposed to cater to all Americans, and not all Americans are Christians.

Well I think roughly 80% claim to be Christian.

There are plenty of older virgins on TV. You just choose to ignore them because you'd rather pretend that you're being persecuted.

Really?? Who? And how many of them arn't derided?

That's because there's no logical reason to say that one-parent families aren't good.

Despite the well known lower grades of children from single parent families?

Or the abject poverty they often live in?

The higher rates of problems with the law resulting in the children.

Don't tell me you havn't heard any surveys and tests on this. There is about a million of them

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/D/200114043.html

(I'm not saying single parents are horrible people, I'm saying its not the best of situations.)

I want to add this

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52574

 

[Maverick3000]

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.

Archaeoraptor was just one discovery of many dinosaurs. It was immediatly disproved by scientists after they were able to look at it. One fake fossil doesn't make every fossil in China a fake.

From what I've observed, many evolutionists (not all) use lies to support their theories.

Name me some.

You want to talk about biased. Creation Science isn't allowed in the classrooms, but Evolutionary Science is. Kids are getting a one sided view and not being exposed to both sides so they can make a decision for themselves. That is just not right.

There is no "other side." Creationism isn't allowed in classrooms because it isn't a science, period. Its a personal belief. Its as appropriate in a science classroom as a discussion as the impact of imperialism had on Asia.

 

[Markus6]

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.

Archaeopteryx and Ichthyornis were found in Germany and America respectively, so I guess they're OK.

It was scientists who uncovered the Archaeoraptor fraud. They have applied the same techniques and are confident with the other fossils. How could they prove they're not fakes to your satisfaction?

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.

What are the names of the textbooks?

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I can respect them, but not because of their atheism. From what I've seen, you have your passive ones and you anti-theist missionaries. I wish the latter would go away.

 

[WileyCoyote]

Archaeoraptor was just one discovery of many dinosaurs. It was immediatly disproved by scientists after they were able to look at it. One fake fossil doesn't make every fossil in China a fake.

No, but it does provide reasonable doubt until further investigation of these fossils is done.

Name me some.

Haeckel. And the Chinese Scientist (I don't know his name) who 'uncovered' the fossil National Geographic paid for.

There is no "other side." Creationism isn't allowed in classrooms because it isn't a science, period. Its a personal belief. Its as appropriate in a science classroom as a discussion as the impact of imperialism had on Asia

This is your opinion, derived from what you've heard evolutionists say. If you've ever studied Creation Science, you would see that it is indeed a science. One small proof is the information in the gene. This points towards intelligent design. Even Richard Dawkins said that the information in the gene is 'uncanningly computer-like.' Evolution cannot answer the question as to how genes contain computer like information.

There is also evidence of a worldwide flood. The flood was specualted to have occured around 5000 years ago. The flood would have destroyed everything, trees and all. For some reason, the oldest tree discovered happens to be 5000 years old, the Methuselah. http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMQDF

This tree made it into the Guiness Book of World Records as the oldest tree ever.

So my question. If the earth is billions of years old as evolutionists claim, why don't we have an older tree someplace? Why is the oldest tree nearly 5000 years old? This fits into Creation Science. But presents a problem for Evolutionary Science.

 

[Markus6]

No, but it does provide reasonable doubt until further investigation of these fossils is done.

Haeckel. And the Chinese Scientist (I don't know his name) who 'uncovered' the fossil National Geographic paid for.


This is your opinion, derived from what you've heard evolutionists say. If you've ever studied Creation Science, you would see that it is indeed a science. One small proof is the information in the gene. This points towards intelligent design. Even Richard Dawkins said that the information in the gene is 'uncanningly computer-like.' Evolution cannot answer the question as to how genes contain computer like information.

There is also evidence of a worldwide flood. The flood was specualted to have occured around 5000 years ago. The flood would have destroyed everything, trees and all. For some reason, the oldest tree discovered happens to be 5000 years old, the Methuselah. http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMQDF

This tree made it into the Guiness Book of World Records as the oldest tree ever.

So my question. If the earth is billions of years old as evolutionists claim, why don't we have an older tree someplace? Why is the oldest tree nearly 5000 years old? This fits into Creation Science. But presents a problem for Evolutionary Science.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24065386/

Uh-oh

 

[Maverick3000]

No, but it does provide reasonable doubt until further investigation of these fossils is done.

They have been. Some of these dinosaurs been around for decades, and went under the same sort of investigation as Archaeraptor did.

Haeckel.

What about Haeckel is fraudulent?

And the Chinese Scientist (I don't know his name) who 'uncovered' the fossil National Geographic paid for.

Who was uncovered by scientists almost the instant they had a chance to look at his "discovery." This proves what now?

This is your opinion, derived from what you've heard evolutionists say.

No, this is derived by common sense. God cannot be tested nor discovered in a scientific room, making creationism impossible to prove or disprove in science. Because of this, its a belief.

If you've ever studied Creation Science, you would see that it is indeed a science. One small proof is the information in the gene. This points towards intelligent design. Even Richard Dawkins said that the information in the gene is 'uncanningly computer-like.' Evolution cannot answer the question as to how genes contain computer like information.

This doesn't prove anything. Your just saying it must be ID because its complicated.

There is also evidence of a worldwide flood. The flood was specualted to have occured around 5000 years ago. The flood would have destroyed everything, trees and all.

Evidence/citations please?

For some reason, the oldest tree discovered happens to be 5000 years old, the Methuselah. http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMQDF

This tree made it into the Guiness Book of World Records as the oldest tree ever.

So my question. If the earth is billions of years old as evolutionists claim, why don't we have an older tree someplace? Why is the oldest tree nearly 5000 years old? This fits into Creation Science. But presents a problem for Evolutionary Science.

First of all, learn your sciences. This isn't related at all to evolution, your dealing with geology. Second trees have not been around since the birth of the Earth. There have also been numerous events in Earth history since then that would have wiped out vegetation life on Earth (Such as the impact event that destroyed the Dinosaurs). Finally, you realize how many trees are destroyed on a daily basis?

 

[TheReasoner]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24065386/

Uh-oh

8000, eh?
Hm. Go figure...

 

[WileyCoyote]

Archaeopteryx and Ichthyornis were found in Germany and America respectively, so I guess they're OK.

Guilty until proven innocent.

It was scientists who uncovered the Archaeoraptor fraud. They have applied the same techniques and are confident with the other fossils. How could they prove they're not fakes to your satisfaction?

Provide a link that states these other fossils were proven to be the 'missing link' that shows reptile evolution into birds. Furthermore, the Bible states that birds were created first, then reptiles. Evolution teaches that reptiles came first, then birds. How then, do you reconcile Evolution and Christianity?

What are the names of the textbooks?

I don't have the names of the textbooks. But I can prove that the drawing is in modern textbooks. My proof is Stephen Jay Gould.

'We should... not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!” http://www.discovery.org/a/3935

 

[HannahBanana]

From what I've observed, many evolutionists (not all) use lies to support their theories. I'm not against using truth. But it makes me mad when they take a drawing by a man convicted of being a fraud and put it in textbooks as truth when it was disproven over 100 years ago.

You want to talk about biased. Creation Science isn't allowed in the classrooms, but Evolutionary Science is. Kids are getting a one sided view and not being exposed to both sides so they can make a decision for themselves. That is just not right.

Hannah, I have no doubt that there are many Atheists and Evolutionists who are nice people. I'm not against respectful individuals. I AM against lies being used to support a theory though. I AM against prejudice. (Evolutionary and Religious prejudice) I'll trust Evolution when they offer real, testable evidence to support their theory.

Oh, and I agree with you. Darn that Richard Dawkins.

How can they use lies to support their theories when their theories are simply based on observations? Plus, why would they use lies to support their theories?

And "creation science" isn't science at all, so of course it's not allowed in the science classroom. Plus, since when is the Biblical creation story the only creation story out there? If we teach about one religion's creation story, we'd better teach about every other religion's creation story, and do you not see how that could get complicated?

And since when is there not testable evidence of evolution? Evolution wouldn't be a theory if there weren't testable evidence of it. It'd just be a hypothesis.

 

[Maverick3000]

Guilty until proven innocent.

I'm sorry, but the world does not follow such silly logic.

Provide a link that states these other fossils were proven to be the 'missing link' that shows reptile evolution into birds.

Google it, or look at wikipedia. It seriously isn't that hard. I also have a funny feeling you don't know what "missing link" actually means.

Furthermore, the Bible states that birds were created first, then reptiles. Evolution teaches that reptiles came first, then birds. How then, do you reconcile Evolution and Christianity?

Easy, the creation in Genesis isn't suppose to be read literally. Many church founders such as St. Augustine had no problems with this idea. Even early fundamentalists had no problems with this idea (They were against evolution not because it was in the Bible per say, but because it took "God" out of the equation. They had no problems admitting the world was older for example)

I don't have the names of the textbooks.

So you actually don't have the text on you, or even know what their name is? How do I even know you actually read them?

But I can prove that the drawing is in modern textbooks. My proof is Stephen Jay Gould.

'We should... not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!” http://www.discovery.org/a/3935

And...? I would imagine they would be in most textbooks. Right or wrong, it was a major scientific event. Most textbooks have one or two chapters talking about the history of the subject or often go into the history of how a theory came about. They often include theories and other stuff that were later to be proven wrong, but thats not the point.

 

[HannahBanana]

During the papal election, the only thing they covered was if the new pope was gonna ordain women or remove celibacy from the Latin Rite.

Yet, no matter who the pope is this is not going to happen. They where begging for a Pope to follow their own bias.

Here's proof that the "liberal media" (which, I'm guessing, is what you're referring to when you say that the mainstream media is biased towards the liberal side of things) doesn't exist: http://media.eriposte.com/persists.htm.

And do what with the mistakes when the contraception doesn't work? Abort them?

Yes. What's so bad about that? Not everyone on earth has to be pro-life, you know.

That isn't what I'm talking about. Almost every church teaches that abuse is a reason for divorce as is adultry.

However there are articles about "starter marriages" and they talk about them like its ok.

I've never seen an article like that. Got a link to one?

Well I think roughly 80% claim to be Christian.

So? That doesn't mean that it'd be okay to just ignore the other 20% of Americans while catering specifically to that 80%.

Really?? Who? And how many of them arn't derided?

Well, I have to admit that I don't watch many modern-day TV shows (the only one that I do watch is "Friends" and even that has been off the air for 4 years now), so I can't give you an answer. I'm betting, though, that there's at least one show on TV that doesn't glamorize sex.

Despite the well known lower grades of children from single parent families?

Or the abject poverty they often live in?

The higher rates of problems with the law resulting in the children.

Don't tell me you havn't heard any surveys and tests on this. There is about a million of them

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/D/200114043.html

(I'm not saying single parents are horrible people, I'm saying its not the best of situations.)

So what do you think should happen to children from single-parent families, then? Should their parent be forced to get married? Or should they be put into foster care? Or would you just rather criticize their situation without actually being able to say what should be done to rectify it?

I want to add this

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52574

You think I should trust a website that has an article titled "A 12-step program for recovering liberals"? That site is known for being extremely hateful towards liberals. Seriously, find a more trustworthy source for that story, or else I'll have no reason to actually believe that it's true.

 

[WileyCoyote]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24065386/

Uh-oh

Uh oh is right. Those trees were dated using the faulty 'carbon dating' method. Here is why you shouldn't trust carbon dating. http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

Furthermore, if these trees WERE 8000 years old then that would mean the biblical flood could not have happened. The timeframe wouldn't have been right, as it happened nearly 5000 years ago. http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/flooddate.html No tree could have survived the flood.

Also, this would still present a problem for the evolutionist's 'age of the earth' theory. 8000 years is not 2 billion.

 

[Markus6]

Guilty until proven innocent.

So every fossil, no matter how well studied, is a fake?

Provide a link that states these other fossils were proven to be the 'missing link' that shows reptile evolution into birds. Furthermore, the Bible states that birds were created first, then reptiles. Evolution teaches that reptiles came first, then birds. How then, do you reconcile Evolution and Christianity?

For starters the bible is not christianity. I reconcile it the same way you reconcile the fact that the sun is necessary to have a morning or evening and the moon doesn't produce it's own light, nor is it confined to the night.

I don't have the names of the textbooks. But I can prove that the drawing is in modern textbooks. My proof is Stephen Jay Gould.

Your proof (an evolutionist) died 5 years ago. Any proof that the current textbooks are using these drawings?

 

[HannahBanana]

Uh oh is right. Those trees were dated using the faulty 'carbon dating' method. Here is why you shouldn't trust carbon dating. http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

Furthermore, if these trees WERE 8000 years old then that would mean the biblical flood could not have happened. The timeframe wouldn't have been right, as it happened nearly 5000 years ago. http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/flooddate.html No tree could have survived the flood.

Also, this would still present a problem for the evolutionist's 'age of the earth' theory. 8000 years is not 2 billion.

And here's a site that disproves what ContenderMinistries is saying: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html. And that site actually has plenty of sources to support what it's saying, while ContenderMinistries has none. So there's no reason why you should trust ContenderMinistries over TalkOrigins.

And of course the Biblical flood didn't happen. It's scientifically impossible for the entire earth to become flooded all at once, plus, there's absolutely no proof of such an event. Not to mention that all the animals on earth could not have fit an ark the size of the one that Noah built.

 

[Luther073082]

Here's proof that the "liberal media" (which, I'm guessing, is what you're referring to when you say that the mainstream media is biased towards the liberal side of things) doesn't exist: http://media.eriposte.com/persists.htm.

Not talking about the liberal media (Although I do think the media leans that way) I'm talking about an anti-christian media.

(There are liberal christains)

Also you seem to determine anything from a conservative source is not true, so why shouldn't I do the same here?

Yes. What's so bad about that? Not everyone on earth has to be pro-life, you know.

Question how do doctors deterime if you are dead or alive?

Besides that I would think you would admit, as most liberals do, that abortion is not a good thing. The difference is that pro-choicers belive it is either a necessary evil or better then certain alternatives. And pro-lifers do not.

I've never seen an article like that. Got a link to one?

Type in starter marriages in google but here is one.

http://www.slate.com/?id=2061596

So? That doesn't mean that it'd be okay to just ignore the other 20% of Americans while catering specifically to that 80%.

And that doesn't mean that its ok to cator to the 20% either. And yet we see it constantly.

Well, I have to admit that I don't watch many modern-day TV shows (the only one that I do watch is "Friends" and even that has been off the air for 4 years now), so I can't give you an answer. I'm betting, though, that there's at least one show on TV that doesn't glamorize sex.

But most do

So what do you think should happen to children from single-parent families, then? Should their parent be forced to get married? Or should they be put into foster care? Or would you just rather criticize their situation without actually being able to say what should be done to rectify it?

That isn't what I'm getting at.

I'm getting at the fact that divorce is bad pure and simple. Occasionally and I do say occassionally its better then the alternative of staying married.

But divorce is always bad.

You think I should trust a website that has an article titled "A 12-step program for recovering liberals"? That site is known for being extremely hateful towards liberals. Seriously, find a more trustworthy source for that story, or else I'll have no reason to actually believe that it's true.

What is untrustworthy about the source? Is it a conservative website? Again I tell you that a website bias does not make a source untrue. It just means they are going to post that story and avoid stories which conflict with their point of view. That is what bias is.

I may lean to the right but you aught to know me well enough to know that I'm moderate on that. I have a strong distaste for extremist conservative positions just like I do extremist liberal positions.

And you aught to know me better then to think that I'm hateful in any way. Please tell me you recognize that I don't hate.