| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Are Atheists religious
On 5/12/2016 3:38 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/12/2016 2:35 PM, Muggles wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. Good points, but religion enhances that righteousness and makes one become adamant because even when proving a Christian wrong, they fail to see it. That's human nature, again, not anything to do with religion. Many other can eventually realize facts and proof which provides a second thought....and that can go for some Christians as well. I don't speak for ALL persons of either category. There are alwasy exceptions to every rule......except death. Agreed. -- Maggie |
|
#42
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On 5/12/16 2:53 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
"Kurt V. Ullman" writes: On 5/12/16 2:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: You should be able to cite thousands of court cases, if this is true. Please, feel free to support your assertion with the corroborating facts. Look up ANY of the first amendment cases, especially the ones they have lost (like one nation under God and In God We Trust). |
|
#43
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:25:41 -0400, Bud Frede
wrote: writes: On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:06:51 +0100, Bod wrote: No. They still have the same evangelical zeal as the most oppressive religions. I'm not sure I would call myself an atheist, since that word is freighted with much baggage and thus doesn't really describe me. I certainly don't ever try to force someone to change their views, nor do I repeatedly invite anyone to church services, or say "I'll pray for you," or any of the other obnoxious things that so many religious people do. I also don't kill people in the name of my religion, since I don't have one. If you have any other beliefs you are persecuted for them in the public square and in the courts. I might assume that you're a bit fuzzy in your thinking, or perhaps lacking in education, but I wouldn't persecute you. I don't see people persecuted for their beliefs in public or in the courts, unless you mean Muslims, and they are currently being persecuted more by their fellow monotheists than by anyone else. Try to be a Christian in Bihar India, or in Mauritania. Also remember the former athiest soviet republic, and China - and the current North Korea. Many other countries in the world too. On the other hand, if you like to use "religious beliefs" as an excuse to infringe on the rights of others, to oppress other groups of people, or to spread hatred, I think you should be shut down right away. Keep those nasty beliefs to yourself and don't ever act on them. That Westboro Baptist Church is always talking about their religious beliefs. I support their right to have those beliefs, even though I completely disagree with them and what they stand for. However, I don't think they should be allowed to inflict their beliefs on others, and especially not the grieving families of those who have died while serving their country in the Armed Forces. I may disagree with your religious beliefs, but I would never march into your child's funeral and try to disrupt it or use it for my own aims. From my experience, it's people with strongly-held religious beliefs that often get carried away and try to force their views on other people - to the point of killing those who won't knuckle under or have the wrong shaped nose or skin color, etc. I may dissagree with your beliefs, But I will stand up for your right to believe as long as your beliefs allow others to bel;ieve what they believe without you attacking them or their beliefs. The current Atheistic posters on this (these) list(s) show no respect for the beliefs of others., so although I MAY respect thier beliefs (or lack of beliefs, as they prefer to call it), I have no respect for them as human beings. |
|
#44
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 14:04:08 -0400, Meanie
wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance whereas a religious zealot will. Religion is the main problem. They won't revert to a book. They will revert to their "superior intelligence" Religion is not the main problem. Human nature is the big problem. |
|
#46
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. Atheism and Mass Murder Joseph Stalin's atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people. Concerning atheism and mass murder, Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."[1] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under atheistic communist regimes, in which militant atheism served as the official doctrine of the state.[1] See also: Atheism and communism Communist regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century through genocide, according to Le Monde, more than 100 million people[2] according to The Black Book of Communism (Courtois, Stéphane, et al., 1997).[3] and according to Cleon Skousen[4] in his best-selling book The Naked Communist.[5] It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.[6] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[7] The Reign of Terror of the French Revolution established a state which was anti-Roman Catholicism/Christian in nature [8] (anti-clerical deism and anti-religious atheism and played a significant role in the French Revolution[9][10]), with the official ideology being the Cult of Reason; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the guillotine.[11] Although Communism is one of the most well-known cases of atheism's ties to mass murder, the French Revolution and subsequent Reign of Terror, inspired by the works of Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rousseau, managed to commit similar persecutions and exterminations of religious people and promote secularism and militant atheism. Official numbers indicate that 300,000 Frenchmen died during Robespierre's Reign of Terror, 297,000 of which were of middle-class or low-class.[12] Of the amount murdered via the guillotine, only 8% had been of the aristocratic class, with over 30% being from the peasant class.[13] One of the most well known cases of mass murder during the French Revolution was the genocide at Vendée, which has yet to be officially recognized as genocide. Some estimates indicated that Robespierre and the Jacobins planned to massacre well over 15,000,000 Frenchmen,[12] and that he also intended to commit genocide against the Alsace region of France due to their German-speaking populace.[13] Besides the guillotine, the French Revolution also resulted in various other deaths, including trampling children with horses, burning people in ovens, "Republican Marriages" (which involved stripping people naked, tying them together to a log in a suggestive fashion, and then putting them into the water to drown. In the event that there wasn't enough people of both sexes, they also resorted to "tying the knot" in a homosexual manner), cutting recently-raped girls in half after tying them to a tree, crushing pregnant women under wine pressers, cutting up pregnant women and using bayonets to stab the fetus inside before leaving her to die, "catching" infants thrown from a balcony with their bayonets, and using shotguns to ensure people bled out to death.[13] The aforementioned actions during the French Revolution, especially the Reign of Terror in 1793, would also inspire Karl Marx with the Communist manifesto, specifically telling Frederick Engels in correspondences to each other: “There is only one way of shortening, simplifying, and concentrating the bloodthirsty death-throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new—revolutionary terror. . . . [...] Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793. [...] We are pitiless and we ask no pity from you. When our time comes, we shall not conceal terrorism with hypocritical phrases. . . The vengeance of the people will break forth with such ferocity that not even the year 1793 enables us to envisage it...”[14] Koukl summarized by stating: “ It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.[1] ” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation: “ Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' [15] |
|
#47
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. The historical record and statistics about atheist leaders and mass murder Theodore Beale Theodore Beale notes concerning atheism and mass murder: “ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao … The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand. Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![16] |
|
#48
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. Historically and presently, most atheists lean politically left (See: Atheism and politics). Theodore Beale wrote about secular leftists and leftists in general: “ Regardless of whether it is...Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, or the vast and corpulent mass of feminists, the Left has an observable tendency to shun debate. They assert many different reasons for doing so, but the truth is always revealed by their seemingly contradictory willingness to debate the incompetent and the overmatched.... One of the things that has been interesting to observe over time is the way that the heated attacks on me, both in public and via email, have all but disappeared even though my overall readership has never been larger. Why is this? My theory is this is because most of my critics, be they atheists, feminists, evolutionists, or free traders, have learned they simply cannot win in a direct confrontation. They can't openly criticize my ideas because they have learned, much to their surprise, that they cannot adequately defend their own. As Aristotle pointed out more than two thousand years ago, even at the rhetorical level, the side more closely approximates the truth will tend to win out, because it is easier to argue when your arguments are based on truth rather than falsehood. Events will always ultimately prove the arguments of the global warmers, the godless, the female supremacists, the socialists, the Keynesians, and the monetarists to be false because their ideas are false. This is why a good memory is one of the most lethal weapons against them and why it is so easy to win debates against them, as given enough time, they are going to contradict themselves. Why? Because they have no choice. Being false, their positions have to be dynamic, which means they can never hope for any significant degree of consistency. This is why ex post facto revision and double-talk are the hallmarks of the Left, and is why the first thing Leftists do when they are in a position of power is to erase history and attempt to silence any voices capable of calling attention to their fictions and contradictions.[2] |
|
#49
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. Brain study: Religious belief vs. non-belief - Anxiety/stress reduction See also: Atheism and brain function According to the leading science news website Phys.org: “ Believing in God can help block anxiety and minimize stress, according to new University of Toronto research that shows distinct brain differences between believers and non-believers. In two studies led by Assistant Psychology Professor Michael Inzlicht, participants performed a Stroop task - a well-known test of cognitive control - while hooked up to electrodes that measured their brain activity. Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some anxiety-producing event like making a mistake. The stronger their religious zeal and the more they believed in God, the less their ACC fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they made... Their findings show religious belief has a calming effect on its devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making errors or facing the unknown.[7] |
|
#50
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. British Humanist Association Sam Harris once described William Lane Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.[18] See also: Atheism and Debate and Evidence for Christianity In August 19, 2011, Fox News reported: “ American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge. This month president of the British Humanist Association, Polly Toynbee, pulled out of an agreed debate at London’s Westminster Central Hall in October, saying she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.” Lane Craig, who is a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif., and author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles, is no stranger to the art of debate and has taken on some of the great orators, such as famous atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Harris once described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”. Responding to Toynbee’s cancellation, Lane Craig commented: "These folks (atheists) can be very brave when they are alone at the podium and there's no one there to challenge them. But one of the great things about these debates is that, it allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field, and for the students in the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies."[19] ” On August 19, 2011, the leading British Anglican weekly newspaper the Church Times wrote: “ The director of Professor Craig’s tour, Peter May, said: “If Craig is ‘wrong about everything else in the universe’ and his arguments for the existence of God are so easy to refute, it is hard to see why the leading atheist voices in the country are running shy of having a debate with him. “Rather than hurling ad hom*inem attacks on Craig from their bunkers, it would be good to see these figures come forward to rationally defend the atheism they publicly espouse.”[20] |
|
#51
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. Secular leftist Swedes and the Muslim rapists epidemic in their country The International Business Times reported in 2014: "Sweden has the highest rate of rape in Europe, with the UN reporting 69 rape cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011."[74] See also: Atheism and rape See also: Atheistic Sweden and rape and Atheism vs. Islam and Atheism and rape Sweden is one of the most atheistic countries in the world and the website adherents.com reported that in 2005 46 - 85% of Swedes were agnostics/atheists/non-believers in God.[75] Sweden also has the 3rd highest rate of belief in evolution as far as Western World nations.[76] The International Business Times reported in 2014: “ Sweden has the highest rate of rape in Europe, with the UN reporting 69 rape cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011, according to author and advocate of power feminism Naomi Wolf on opinion website Project Syndicate. In 2010, Swedish police recorded the highest number of offences - about 63 per 100,000 inhabitants - of any force in Europe. That was the second highest in the world after Lesotho. "According to rape crisis advocates in Sweden, one-third of Swedish women have been sexually assaulted by the time they leave their teens. According to a study published in 2003, and other later studies through 2009, Sweden has the highest sexual assault rate in Europe, and among the lowest conviction rates," Wolf wrote. A 2010 Amnesty report said: "In Sweden, according to official crime statistics, the number of reported rapes has quadrupled during the past 20 years. In 2008, there were just over 4,000 rapes of people over 15, the great majority of them girls and women."[77] ” India's Maneka Gandhi, who is the Indian Union Cabinet Minister for Women and Child Development, said when comparing India's rape rate to Sweden's: “We have four rapes per 100,000 women, while Sweden has more than 130."[78] |
|
#52
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
|
|
#53
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism Richard Dawkins See also: Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism and Atheism and communism Militant atheism was a part of communist ideology and this is still the case in communist China (See: Atheism and communism). For example, in 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheists.[5][6] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[7] See also: Atheism and mass murder Dinesh D'Souza took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in historical revisionism when it comes to the atrocities of atheist regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".VIDEO. In a recent interview D'Souza declared: “ Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and Communism were atheist ideologies. Stalin and Mao weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine. It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...[8] |
|
#54
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
|
|
#55
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview: “ As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether Christian or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.[9] ” Vladimir Lenin Karl Marx said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."[10] Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[11] In 1955, Chinese communist leader Zhou Enlai declared, "We Communists are atheists".[12] |
|
#56
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. Atheist Daniel Dennet's commentary on Joseph Stalin The new atheist Daniel Dennett attempted to minimize the atheism of the militant atheist Joseph Stalin. Dennett said, “ …it occurred to me—let’s think about Stalin for a moment. Was he an atheist? You might say well of course he was an atheist. No, on the contrary. In a certain sense, he wasn’t an atheist at all. He believed in god. Not only that, he believe in a god whose will determined what right and wrong was. And he was sure of the existence of this god, and the god’s name was Stalin.” |
|
#57
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
|
|
#58
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
|
|
#59
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. Atheists and the denial that Jesus existed Despite their being an abundance of historical evidence for Jesus Christ living in the first century, many atheists embarrassingly claim the Jesus never existed (see: Historicity of Jesus). In an article entitled Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth, Christopher Price wrote concerning individuals who insist that Jesus Christ was merely a mythical figu “ I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.[14] ” Price also indicates: “ In his book, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, Howard Marshall points out that in the early to mid 20th century, one of the few "authorities" to consider Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopaedia. He then goes on to discuss the work of GA Wells which was then recently published. There is said to be a Russian encyclopaedia in current use which affirms in a brief entry that Jesus Christ was the mythological founder of Christianity, but it is virtually alone in doing so. The historian will not take its statement very seriously, since ... it offers no evidence for its assertion, and mere assertion cannot stand over against historical enquiry. But more than mere assertion is involved, for an attempt to show that Jesus never existed has been made in recent years by GA Wells, a Professor of German who has ventured into New Testament study and presents a case that the origins Christianity can be explained without assuming that Jesus really lived. Earlier presentations of similar views at the turn of the century failed to make any impression on scholarly opinion, and it is certain that this latest presentation of the case will not fare any better. Professor Marshall was correct that neither any earlier attempt nor Wells have swayed scholarly opinion. This remains true whether the scholars were Christians, liberals, conservatives, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, or Catholic. And even GA Wells himself has now conceded that a real figure called Jesus lay behind some of the teaching contained in the synoptic Gospels. |
|
#60
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. Atheist historical revisionism about the birth of modern science In his essay Of Atheism Sir Francis Bacon wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran (Koran), than that this universal frame is without a mind."[17] A notable fact in relation to Christianity and science is that the birth of modern science occurred in the geographic area of Christianized Europe.[18] Christians awed by the grandeur of God's creative work have long striven to understand His creativity through scientific study. Sociologist Rodney Stark investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the Scientific Revolution. In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors,[19] only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.[19] Stark believes that the Enlightenment was a ploy by militant atheists to claim credit for the rise of science[20]. In False conflict: Christianity is not only compatible with Science - it created it. Stark writes: “ Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a "Dark Ages" after the "fall" of Rome. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called "Scientific Revolution" of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology. Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. My studies show that the "Enlightenment" was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like Voltaire, Diderot, and Gibbon, who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise......[21] ” There is abundant amount of historical evidence which demonstrates a causal relationship between the Christian world of ideas and the rise of modern science.[22][23] Professor Eric Kaufmann, who specializes in demography and politics (and is an agnostic), wrote: “ Worldwide, the march of religion can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, socialism and 1960s anarchist-liberalism. Ironically, secularism's demographic deficit means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm." [24] ” Internet atheists frequently engage in historical revisionism as far as the rise of modern science in Christianized Europe.[25] |
|
#61
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
|
|
#62
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. Evolutionary pseudoscience and historical revisionism Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists and agnostics.[27] The creation vs. evolution issue is a matter which deals with historical science and not experimental science.[28] Ernst Mayr The atheist Ernst Mayr was a Harvard biologist and served as director of Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology from 1961 to 1970.[29][30] Mayr was a prominent evolutionist and was referred to as "the Darwin of the 20th century". [31] Mayr wrote: “ Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.[32] ” Evolution and fraud/speculation posing as fact human evolution Evolution is a pseudoscience that engages in historical revisionism and often has speculation posing as historical fact (see: Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation and Atheism and deception and Evolution and just so stories). In January of 2012, the Journal of Research in Science Teaching published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.[33] See also: Causes of evolutionary belief A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist and Stephen Gould, who held a agnostic worldview[34] and promoted the notion of non-overlapping magesteria, wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History: “ "Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e 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!"[35] ” An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the NY Times refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism."[36] Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".[35] Paleoanthropology, speculation and intellectual dishonesty Paleoanthropology is an interdisciplinary branch of anthropology that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and artifacts.[37] Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at Yale University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.[38] Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book Origins in the journal American Scientist: “ ...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.[39] ” Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology: “ I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory" - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted |
|
#63
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. Evolutionist and Harvard professor Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that "Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...."[41] In the September 2005 issue of National Geographic, Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology "has again become a rather glorious mess."[42][43] In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".[43] Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative natu “ Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.[44][45] ” Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution |
|
#64
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
|
|
#65
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling, their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a similar way. Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter. whereas a religious zealot will. A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them. Religion is the main problem. Human nature is the main problem, not religion. Atheists and the worldviews of the founding fathers of the United States Atheists and the worldviews of the founding fathers of the United States Samuel Provoost served as the first Senate Chaplain in 1789. Despite a very large percentage of founding fathers of the United States being Episcopalians/Anglicans, Presbyterians and Congregationalists, atheists often falsely argue that a very large percentage of the founding fathers were deists/godless.[56] According to the U.S. Senate website: “ New members to the Senate discover an enduring tradition in the chaplain's daily prayer. Soon after the Senate first convened in New York City in April 1789, it selected the local Episcopal bishop as its chaplain. Moving to Philadelphia the following year, senators again chose that city's Episcopal bishop. Arriving in Washington, D.C., in 1800, the Senate continued selecting clergymen from mainline Protestant denominations–usually Episcopalians or Presbyterians–to deliver opening prayers and to preside at funerals and memorial services for departed members. These chaplains typically served for less than a year and conducted their Senate duties along with their responsibilities as full-time leaders of nearby parishes. In 1914, the Senate began including the full text of its chaplain's prayer in the Congressional Record.[ |
|
#66
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
|
|
#67
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:15:39 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: | That second thing is wrong. At atheist DOES NOT have a belief in a god | or gods. SOME may have a belief that there is no god or gods, but that | is not the definition of atheist. | Look it up in the dictionary. a-theist. Agnostic or non-theist would be someone who doesn't adopt a belief. Atheists believe no god exists. If you talk to atheists they'll often wiggle around, saying they're openminded, if only theists can prove the existence of their god. But generally atheists are defining that god as a personal god -- an 80-foot-tall man with a long beard living in the sky. So what they're really saying is that they're intelligent and religious people are idiots. They're oblivious to any more sophisticated version of religion/spirituality. | BTW, "religion" does not really have anything to do with a god or gods. | It's a way to keep people together. The word is often misused. | It can be all sorts of things. There is no god in Buddhism, but that's considered a religion. The Scientologists could be considered to have a religion. The Mormons are arguably the first New Age cult, but now present as an established religion. A way to keep people together would be debt, clubs, tribes, sexual attraction, common interests, etc. The dictionary, and most people, would define a religion as some kind of guiding system of morals and social rules, with a spiritual orientation, that may or may not involve gods or deities. Again, look it up in the dictionary. In the US most people would define religion as belief in the Christian god, and atheism as denial of the Christian god. But that's why I touched on that issue in my posts. Religion is different things to different people. Spirituality is different things to different people. How does the Christianity of Thomas Merton compare to that of Billy Graham? Probably not much common ground there. So if someone says they're atheist or religious they really need to define that *for them*. In my experience, atheists are scientific materialists who view all religion/spirituality as being dumb, literal belief in a cosmic daddy figure. They then pat themselves on the back for believing in science, which they regard as a rational belief. They're anti-religious in a very condescending way, but mostly they're just ignorant. +1 |
|
#68
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
|
|
#69
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
|
|
#70
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On 12/05/2016 19:27, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 5/12/16 2:04 PM, Meanie wrote: On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote: A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base responses, some more than others. Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure, they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an adamant stance whereas a religious zealot will. Religion is the main problem. Since when. Heck the courts are filled with aetheists being all righteous in enforcing their views on people. Also, try to suggest to an aetheist that their view is every bit as much a leap of faith as any Christian or Muslim (you can no more prove God doesn't exist than that He or She does). You'll get every bit as much as spittle as from any rock ribbed Christian. That's very presumptious of you, how could you possibly know the faith of people in the courts! -- Bod |
|
#71
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
|
|
#72
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On 12/05/2016 21:15, Mayayana wrote:
| That second thing is wrong. At atheist DOES NOT have a belief in a god | or gods. SOME may have a belief that there is no god or gods, but that | is not the definition of atheist. | Look it up in the dictionary. a-theist. Agnostic or non-theist would be someone who doesn't adopt a belief. Atheists believe no god exists. If you talk to atheists they'll often wiggle around, saying they're openminded, if only theists can prove the existence of their god. But generally atheists are defining that god as a personal god -- an 80-foot-tall man with a long beard living in the sky. So what they're really saying is that they're intelligent and religious people are idiots. They're oblivious to any more sophisticated version of religion/spirituality. | BTW, "religion" does not really have anything to do with a god or gods. | It's a way to keep people together. The word is often misused. | It can be all sorts of things. There is no god in Buddhism, but that's considered a religion. The Scientologists could be considered to have a religion. The Mormons are arguably the first New Age cult, but now present as an established religion. A way to keep people together would be debt, clubs, tribes, sexual attraction, common interests, etc. The dictionary, and most people, would define a religion as some kind of guiding system of morals and social rules, with a spiritual orientation, that may or may not involve gods or deities. Again, look it up in the dictionary. In the US most people would define religion as belief in the Christian god, and atheism as denial of the Christian god. But that's why I touched on that issue in my posts. Religion is different things to different people. Spirituality is different things to different people. How does the Christianity of Thomas Merton compare to that of Billy Graham? Probably not much common ground there. So if someone says they're atheist or religious they really need to define that *for them*. In my experience, atheists are scientific materialists who view all religion/spirituality as being dumb, literal belief in a cosmic daddy figure. They then pat themselves on the back for believing in science, which they regard as a rational belief. They're anti-religious in a very condescending way, but mostly they're just ignorant. You've just accused half of America as being ignorant. A bold and "condescending" claim. "Religion is dying out in America: Just 18% of people 60 and younger attend church and less than 50% believe in God" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz48VpYgRjb -- Bod |
|
#73
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
|
|
#76
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On 5/12/2016 10:57 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:25:41 -0400, Bud Frede wrote: writes: On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:06:51 +0100, Bod wrote: No. They still have the same evangelical zeal as the most oppressive religions. I'm not sure I would call myself an atheist, since that word is freighted with much baggage and thus doesn't really describe me. I certainly don't ever try to force someone to change their views, nor do I repeatedly invite anyone to church services, or say "I'll pray for you," or any of the other obnoxious things that so many religious people do. I also don't kill people in the name of my religion, since I don't have one. If you have any other beliefs you are persecuted for them in the public square and in the courts. I might assume that you're a bit fuzzy in your thinking, or perhaps lacking in education, but I wouldn't persecute you. I don't see people persecuted for their beliefs in public or in the courts, unless you mean Muslims, and they are currently being persecuted more by their fellow monotheists than by anyone else. Try to be a Christian in Bihar India, or in Mauritania. Also remember the former athiest soviet republic, and China - and the current North Korea. Many other countries in the world too. On the other hand, if you like to use "religious beliefs" as an excuse to infringe on the rights of others, to oppress other groups of people, or to spread hatred, I think you should be shut down right away. Keep those nasty beliefs to yourself and don't ever act on them. That Westboro Baptist Church is always talking about their religious beliefs. I support their right to have those beliefs, even though I completely disagree with them and what they stand for. However, I don't think they should be allowed to inflict their beliefs on others, and especially not the grieving families of those who have died while serving their country in the Armed Forces. I may disagree with your religious beliefs, but I would never march into your child's funeral and try to disrupt it or use it for my own aims. From my experience, it's people with strongly-held religious beliefs that often get carried away and try to force their views on other people - to the point of killing those who won't knuckle under or have the wrong shaped nose or skin color, etc. I may dissagree with your beliefs, But I will stand up for your right to believe as long as your beliefs allow others to bel;ieve what they believe without you attacking them or their beliefs. The current Atheistic posters on this (these) list(s) show no respect for the beliefs of others., so although I MAY respect thier beliefs (or lack of beliefs, as they prefer to call it), I have no respect for them as human beings. I've found that people who are comfortable in their beliefs have a great strength. The strength to let others be what they want to be. People who spend all their time trying to convince me "we're OK, too!" worry me. For example people who spend lots of time on gay pride marches, and campaigns for bathrooms make me think that they know full well that sodomy, homosexuality and perversions are wrong. But that they need approval from the rest of us. - .. Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus .. www.lds.org .. .. |
|
#77
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
| +1
I was also enjoying your comprehensive exploration of atheism. It's nice to see there are some people who don't regard the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as "top shelf intellectuals". |
|
#78
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On 5/13/2016 1:23 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:09, Muggles wrote: On 5/12/2016 10:44 PM, wrote: Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some anxiety-producing event like making a mistake. The stronger their religious zeal and the more they believed in God, the less their ACC fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they made... Their findings show religious belief has a calming effect on its devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making errors or facing the unknown.[7] Interesting! thanks for posting it. Did you just say "religious belief has a calming effect on its devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making errors or facing the unknown"? Religion *introduces* fear into believers, ie: hell. hmmm If a person is guilty, they often fear the consequences. Don't you think that's normal? Hmm! I'd better be good or I'll suffer eternal damnation etc. Consequences to ones actions are normal. Much of religion is based on *fear of the unknown*. Much of what people actually do is because they fear the unknown. -- Maggie |
|
#79
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On 5/13/2016 1:25 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:11, Muggles wrote: On 5/12/2016 10:48 PM, wrote: “Rather than hurling ad hom*inem attacks on Craig from their bunkers, it would be good to see these figures come forward to rationally defend the atheism they publicly espouse.”[20] YES! Good discussion often ends up with ad homs when it comes to topics like this. If you check back in this discussion, you'll find the ad homs have come from the religious posters, like; Gunner Achs (or whatever his name is). How much of such responses do you attribute to the religious aspect of a poster vs. their personality and human nature? I don't know why some people think that just because someone espouses affiliation with a religion that it makes that person suddenly reject their human nature? -- Maggie |
|
#80
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are Atheists religious
On 5/13/2016 8:55 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| +1 I was also enjoying your comprehensive exploration of atheism. It's nice to see there are some people who don't regard the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as "top shelf intellectuals". I've seen people get angry when I'd challenge things that such intellectuals say. I figure if that intellectual's argument can't hold up against my challenge, then that intellectual's argument has very little validity. -- Maggie |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| After nutsack atheists complain, Marines reviewing whether to let Camp Pendleton cross stay. Let Recon handle the atheists once and for all. | Metalworking | |||
| Places Atheists avoid Was:..what are all these atheists doinghere? | Metalworking | |||
| Places Atheists avoid Was:..what are all these atheists doinghere? | Metalworking | |||
| Places Atheists avoid Was:..what are all these atheists doinghere? | Metalworking | |||
![Muggles[_11_] is offline](https://www.diybanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
