Are Atheists Delusional?

[progressive hunter]

You're missing the forest for all the trees, doll. lol

No, I am responding to someone who reads Genesis as a history text.

Quote: I am responding to someone who reads Genesis as a history text.​

And that's worse than someone who views the Periodic Tables as the holy gospel?

​

Beautress, I am not anti-religion. But when I am called delusional, I sometimes respond. When someone calls for replacing scientific research with religious dogma, I speak up.

we dont want anything replaced,, just proof evo is true,,,at this point its just as a religion as the rest because it requires faith

There are complimentary fields of science which have the proof you need. You choose to reject it because archeology, paleo-biology, the earth sciences, etc., collectively demonstrate an ancient planet. That is in direct contradiction to a 6,000 year old planet.

I have read every link posted and none have provided proof,,,just speculation

 

[hobelim]

You're missing the forest for all the trees, doll. lol

No, I am responding to someone who reads Genesis as a history text.

Quote: I am responding to someone who reads Genesis as a history text.​

And that's worse than someone who views the Periodic Tables as the holy gospel?

​

Beautress, I am not anti-religion. But when I am called delusional, I sometimes respond. When someone calls for replacing scientific research with religious dogma, I speak up.

we dont want anything replaced,, just proof evo is true,,,at this point its just as a religion as the rest because it requires faith

There are complimentary fields of science which have the proof you need. You choose to reject it because archeology, paleo-biology, the earth sciences, etc., collectively demonstrate an ancient planet. That is in direct contradiction to a 6,000 year old planet.

Isn't it astonishing to see how low these so called moral people of faith will stoop just to avoid admitting that they were wrong to mistake a fairy tale for a historical document?

 

[Hollie]

No, it is not off topic. YOu have claimed that science teachers lie to students. And you claim that the global flood was not only real, but an integral part of the fossil record. So asking you questions that relate to the viability of Noah's Ark is relevant.

and I have provided proof that that claim is true,,,

and we are talking about facts not religion

Religion is part of the topic.

are you saying atheist is a religion??

Obviously not. Atheism has no customs, practices or dogma. There is no holy book of atheism. There are no houses of not believing where non-believers gather to not believe.

Atheism has none of the trappings of a religion. Basically, atheism or agnosticism is a conclusion that your gods as well as all the inventions of gods that preceded your gods are human inventions.

all a religion requires is a belief,the rest is just icing

That's rather a simpleton view. Christianity, like many religions, has an entire set of OCD- like rituals, practices and customs that simply don't exist for one who doesnt believe in tbe religion he was born into.

Anthropologists assign the term sympathetic magic to the ritual eating of Christ and drinking his blood, the Sunday brunch attended to by Christians.

 

[progressive hunter]

and I have provided proof that that claim is true,,,

and we are talking about facts not religion

Religion is part of the topic.

are you saying atheist is a religion??

Obviously not. Atheism has no customs, practices or dogma. There is no holy book of atheism. There are no houses of not believing where non-believers gather to not believe.

Atheism has none of the trappings of a religion. Basically, atheism or agnosticism is a conclusion that your gods as well as all the inventions of gods that preceded your gods are human inventions.

all a religion requires is a belief,the rest is just icing

That's rather a simpleton view. Christianity, like many religions, has an entire set of OCD- like rituals, practices and customs that simply don't exist for one who doesnt believe in tbe religion he was born into.

Anthropologists assign the term sympathetic magic to the ritual eating of Christ and drinking his blood, the Sunday brunch attended to by Christians.

off topic

 

[WinterBorn]

No they have no been proven wrong.

I did it several times on this thread

No you did not. You claim Lucy is a lie, and yet other, more complete skeletons were found.

And your answer for so many things hinge on a global flood. Unless you can explain how sloths and kangaroos were included on Noah's Ark, the great flood is hardly an answer. In fact, unless you show how those animals found their way to a 510' boat in the middleeast, the entire Noah's Ark argument folds completely.

what other skeletons???

please provide proof

from: Australopithecus | Characteristics & Facts

"Australopithecus, (Latin: “southern ape”) (genus Australopithecus), group of extinct primates closely related to, if not actually ancestors of, modern human beings and known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites in eastern, north-central, and southern Africa."

Let me help you see the key part of that post. "...known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites...".

but none of those links have a more complete skeleton other than known ape/monkey ,,,the rest is speculation as to their future


so again no proof they gave birth to humans

So your problem with Lucy was not that she was called a new species. It was because they claim she may be an ancestor of modern man?

Then, since we have no time machine, you can offer an opinion as to whether or not the claims are accurate. But you cannot call it an outright lie.

 

[hobelim]

and I have provided proof that that claim is true,,,

and we are talking about facts not religion

Religion is part of the topic.

are you saying atheist is a religion??

Obviously not. Atheism has no customs, practices or dogma. There is no holy book of atheism. There are no houses of not believing where non-believers gather to not believe.

Atheism has none of the trappings of a religion. Basically, atheism or agnosticism is a conclusion that your gods as well as all the inventions of gods that preceded your gods are human inventions.

all a religion requires is a belief,the rest is just icing

That's rather a simpleton view. Christianity, like many religions, has an entire set of OCD- like rituals, practices and customs that simply don't exist for one who doesnt believe in tbe religion he was born into.

Anthropologists assign the term sympathetic magic to the ritual eating of Christ and drinking his blood, the Sunday brunch attended to by Christians.

Hey don't knock it.. If you have never eaten Jesus how would you know whether or not if he was tasty?

 

[Taz]

Religion is part of the topic.

are you saying atheist is a religion??

Obviously not. Atheism has no customs, practices or dogma. There is no holy book of atheism. There are no houses of not believing where non-believers gather to not believe.

Atheism has none of the trappings of a religion. Basically, atheism or agnosticism is a conclusion that your gods as well as all the inventions of gods that preceded your gods are human inventions.

all a religion requires is a belief,the rest is just icing

That's rather a simpleton view. Christianity, like many religions, has an entire set of OCD- like rituals, practices and customs that simply don't exist for one who doesnt believe in tbe religion he was born into.

Anthropologists assign the term sympathetic magic to the ritual eating of Christ and drinking his blood, the Sunday brunch attended to by Christians.

Hey don't knock it.. If you have never eaten Jesus how would you know whether or not he was tasty?

I don't know about atheists, but I know that hob is delusional.

 

[progressive hunter]

I did it several times on this thread

No you did not. You claim Lucy is a lie, and yet other, more complete skeletons were found.

And your answer for so many things hinge on a global flood. Unless you can explain how sloths and kangaroos were included on Noah's Ark, the great flood is hardly an answer. In fact, unless you show how those animals found their way to a 510' boat in the middleeast, the entire Noah's Ark argument folds completely.

what other skeletons???

please provide proof

from: Australopithecus | Characteristics & Facts

"Australopithecus, (Latin: “southern ape”) (genus Australopithecus), group of extinct primates closely related to, if not actually ancestors of, modern human beings and known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites in eastern, north-central, and southern Africa."

Let me help you see the key part of that post. "...known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites...".

but none of those links have a more complete skeleton other than known ape/monkey ,,,the rest is speculation as to their future


so again no proof they gave birth to humans

So your problem with Lucy was not that she was called a new species. It was because they claim she may be an ancestor of modern man?

Then, since we have no time machine, you can offer an opinion as to whether or not the claims are accurate. But you cannot call it an outright lie.

I dont recall call her a flat out lie, but to call her an ancestor of man is


you know you never told me how the media dig up a pigs tooth and made a full grown apeman out of it with nebraska man

 

[hobelim]

are you saying atheist is a religion??

Obviously not. Atheism has no customs, practices or dogma. There is no holy book of atheism. There are no houses of not believing where non-believers gather to not believe.

Atheism has none of the trappings of a religion. Basically, atheism or agnosticism is a conclusion that your gods as well as all the inventions of gods that preceded your gods are human inventions.

all a religion requires is a belief,the rest is just icing

That's rather a simpleton view. Christianity, like many religions, has an entire set of OCD- like rituals, practices and customs that simply don't exist for one who doesnt believe in tbe religion he was born into.

Anthropologists assign the term sympathetic magic to the ritual eating of Christ and drinking his blood, the Sunday brunch attended to by Christians.

Hey don't knock it.. If you have never eaten Jesus how would you know whether or not he was tasty?

I don't know about atheists, but I know that hob is delusional.

Ha! Unbeliever!

Behold!

Jesus gave the world his flesh to eat. I shall give you a banana.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I am responding to someone who reads Genesis as a history text.

Quote: I am responding to someone who reads Genesis as a history text.​

And that's worse than someone who views the Periodic Tables as the holy gospel?

​

Beautress, I am not anti-religion. But when I am called delusional, I sometimes respond. When someone calls for replacing scientific research with religious dogma, I speak up.

we dont want anything replaced,, just proof evo is true,,,at this point its just as a religion as the rest because it requires faith

There are complimentary fields of science which have the proof you need. You choose to reject it because archeology, paleo-biology, the earth sciences, etc., collectively demonstrate an ancient planet. That is in direct contradiction to a 6,000 year old planet.

I have read every link posted and none have provided proof,,,just speculation

And yet, you base your entire belief system, where science is concerned, on the great flood myth. You take a single story, from a single book, and claim it is totally accurate. And yet, without a video of a hominid giving birth to a fully developed modern human, you call it "just speculation".

So how about those kangaroos and sloths? How did they get on the Ark?

 

[Hollie]

No, I am responding to someone who reads Genesis as a history text.

Quote: I am responding to someone who reads Genesis as a history text.​

And that's worse than someone who views the Periodic Tables as the holy gospel?

​

Beautress, I am not anti-religion. But when I am called delusional, I sometimes respond. When someone calls for replacing scientific research with religious dogma, I speak up.

we dont want anything replaced,, just proof evo is true,,,at this point its just as a religion as the rest because it requires faith

There are complimentary fields of science which have the proof you need. You choose to reject it because archeology, paleo-biology, the earth sciences, etc., collectively demonstrate an ancient planet. That is in direct contradiction to a 6,000 year old planet.

Isn't it astonishing to see how low these so called moral people of faith will stoop just to avoid admitting that they were wrong to mistake a fairy tale for a historical document?

The also get rather frantic at any challenge to their tales and fables.

Consider this historically accurate and defendable argument:

All the human inventions of gods, with time, are swept away and looked upon as myth.

Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.

Dust, all. Antiquities. History suggests it will be also with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.

It’s already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why are some christians so reactionary? Because the adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Religionistss defame the U.S. as godless because… well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods don’t return to this earth, as gods don’t prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, they know there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.

 

[WinterBorn]

No you did not. You claim Lucy is a lie, and yet other, more complete skeletons were found.

And your answer for so many things hinge on a global flood. Unless you can explain how sloths and kangaroos were included on Noah's Ark, the great flood is hardly an answer. In fact, unless you show how those animals found their way to a 510' boat in the middleeast, the entire Noah's Ark argument folds completely.

what other skeletons???

please provide proof

from: Australopithecus | Characteristics & Facts

"Australopithecus, (Latin: “southern ape”) (genus Australopithecus), group of extinct primates closely related to, if not actually ancestors of, modern human beings and known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites in eastern, north-central, and southern Africa."

Let me help you see the key part of that post. "...known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites...".

but none of those links have a more complete skeleton other than known ape/monkey ,,,the rest is speculation as to their future


so again no proof they gave birth to humans

So your problem with Lucy was not that she was called a new species. It was because they claim she may be an ancestor of modern man?

Then, since we have no time machine, you can offer an opinion as to whether or not the claims are accurate. But you cannot call it an outright lie.

I dont recall call her a flat out lie, but to call her an ancestor of man is


you know you never told me how the media dig up a pigs tooth and made a full grown apeman out of it with nebraska man

And you never told me how kangaroos and sloths got on the Ark.

 

[progressive hunter]

Quote: I am responding to someone who reads Genesis as a history text.​

And that's worse than someone who views the Periodic Tables as the holy gospel?

​

Beautress, I am not anti-religion. But when I am called delusional, I sometimes respond. When someone calls for replacing scientific research with religious dogma, I speak up.

we dont want anything replaced,, just proof evo is true,,,at this point its just as a religion as the rest because it requires faith

There are complimentary fields of science which have the proof you need. You choose to reject it because archeology, paleo-biology, the earth sciences, etc., collectively demonstrate an ancient planet. That is in direct contradiction to a 6,000 year old planet.

I have read every link posted and none have provided proof,,,just speculation

And yet, you base your entire belief system, where science is concerned, on the great flood myth. You take a single story, from a single book, and claim it is totally accurate. And yet, without a video of a hominid giving birth to a fully developed modern human, you call it "just speculation".

So how about those kangaroos and sloths? How did they get on the Ark?

off topic

 

[progressive hunter]

what other skeletons???

please provide proof

from: Australopithecus | Characteristics & Facts

"Australopithecus, (Latin: “southern ape”) (genus Australopithecus), group of extinct primates closely related to, if not actually ancestors of, modern human beings and known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites in eastern, north-central, and southern Africa."

Let me help you see the key part of that post. "...known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites...".

but none of those links have a more complete skeleton other than known ape/monkey ,,,the rest is speculation as to their future


so again no proof they gave birth to humans

So your problem with Lucy was not that she was called a new species. It was because they claim she may be an ancestor of modern man?

Then, since we have no time machine, you can offer an opinion as to whether or not the claims are accurate. But you cannot call it an outright lie.

I dont recall call her a flat out lie, but to call her an ancestor of man is


you know you never told me how the media dig up a pigs tooth and made a full grown apeman out of it with nebraska man

And you never told me how kangaroos and sloths got on the Ark.

I never said a word about them,,,where as you made a direct claim on nebraska man

 

[beautress]

if you'd check my sources you'd know thats not what I said

its your choice to be a ignorant bigot

and thats what the ark story claims,,again check my links,,there are a little over 400 kinds of animals

There is another issue with the Global Flood concept. If the world was covered by water, almost every plant would die as well. Now some seeds would survive the flooding, but many, many would not. Being soaked for 40 days would destroy many of them.

But even more importantly, in order for the flood myth to be accurate, Noah would have had to collect animals from other continents.

How did Noah obtain 2 kangaroos? How did he obtain 2 sloths from South America? How did he transport a pair of bison over 7,000 miles?

No, the global flood is pure myth.

You're missing the forest for all the trees, doll. lol

No, I am responding to someone who reads Genesis as a history text.

Quote: I am responding to someone who reads Genesis as a history text.​

And that's worse than someone who views the Periodic Tables as the holy gospel?

​

Beautress, I am not anti-religion. But when I am called delusional, I sometimes respond. When someone calls for replacing scientific research with religious dogma, I speak up.

I do not think of you as delusional, but the father of scientific research was imho, Christ the Lord himself who encouraged others with the message, "Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." The more mankind does that, the more he finds out about God's wonderful universe. I've been called delusional, too, but I try to view things from the standpoint that scientific knowledge from time to time reverses itself from something scientists regarded as true, then, in less than 50 years, somebody else comes up with new math that proves something else was more true, which makes earlier scientific evidence less well-founded than believed. At the root of all that agreeing to disagree, science still does not answer the question "why are we here?" in a way that will not lead up to people committing suicide over something proven wrong, which will likely be proven wrong by something else every 50 years or more. Folds in the universe advancing space travel to be almost instant? Is that true? The theories out there about time travel seem wanna-bes, because to my knowledge, nobody has come back from the future with proof, but saying lies seems to get instant funding by whoever employs them.

I do think George Washington had it right, though, regardless of the flap it causes among those who want his moxie for getting the British Army off our backs, but enrages those who are hostile to his belief system to the point they marginalize everything he wrote of a public nature that included a reference to dependency on Almighty God. And I get flak for mentioning it, because I have read all his papers and know for a fact that except for a few to-do lists found among his papers, the overwhelming majority of his public writings curry a supreme being's favor that men and women of his era happily accepted and used as a springboard for invention, prosperity, and building human faith in higher things, learned in the Christian churches of the day. Maybe it's because I'm a believer too, but my beliefs encouraged me to continue believing in God, not in the roadblocks detractors throw in my face because it somehow threatens their free-agent views, when it doesn't at all remove their right to say what they think.

 

[WinterBorn]

No you did not. You claim Lucy is a lie, and yet other, more complete skeletons were found.

And your answer for so many things hinge on a global flood. Unless you can explain how sloths and kangaroos were included on Noah's Ark, the great flood is hardly an answer. In fact, unless you show how those animals found their way to a 510' boat in the middleeast, the entire Noah's Ark argument folds completely.

what other skeletons???

please provide proof

from: Australopithecus | Characteristics & Facts

"Australopithecus, (Latin: “southern ape”) (genus Australopithecus), group of extinct primates closely related to, if not actually ancestors of, modern human beings and known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites in eastern, north-central, and southern Africa."

Let me help you see the key part of that post. "...known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites...".

but none of those links have a more complete skeleton other than known ape/monkey ,,,the rest is speculation as to their future


so again no proof they gave birth to humans

So your problem with Lucy was not that she was called a new species. It was because they claim she may be an ancestor of modern man?

Then, since we have no time machine, you can offer an opinion as to whether or not the claims are accurate. But you cannot call it an outright lie.

I dont recall call her a flat out lie, but to call her an ancestor of man is


you know you never told me how the media dig up a pigs tooth and made a full grown apeman out of it with nebraska man

So saying she may be an ancestor is a flat out lie? On what do you base that?

 

[progressive hunter]

what other skeletons???

please provide proof

from: Australopithecus | Characteristics & Facts

"Australopithecus, (Latin: “southern ape”) (genus Australopithecus), group of extinct primates closely related to, if not actually ancestors of, modern human beings and known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites in eastern, north-central, and southern Africa."

Let me help you see the key part of that post. "...known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites...".

but none of those links have a more complete skeleton other than known ape/monkey ,,,the rest is speculation as to their future


so again no proof they gave birth to humans

So your problem with Lucy was not that she was called a new species. It was because they claim she may be an ancestor of modern man?

Then, since we have no time machine, you can offer an opinion as to whether or not the claims are accurate. But you cannot call it an outright lie.

I dont recall call her a flat out lie, but to call her an ancestor of man is


you know you never told me how the media dig up a pigs tooth and made a full grown apeman out of it with nebraska man

So saying she may be an ancestor is a flat out lie? On what do you base that?

lack of proof and common scientific sense

now what about nebraska man

 

[Taz]

Obviously not. Atheism has no customs, practices or dogma. There is no holy book of atheism. There are no houses of not believing where non-believers gather to not believe.

Atheism has none of the trappings of a religion. Basically, atheism or agnosticism is a conclusion that your gods as well as all the inventions of gods that preceded your gods are human inventions.

all a religion requires is a belief,the rest is just icing

That's rather a simpleton view. Christianity, like many religions, has an entire set of OCD- like rituals, practices and customs that simply don't exist for one who doesnt believe in tbe religion he was born into.

Anthropologists assign the term sympathetic magic to the ritual eating of Christ and drinking his blood, the Sunday brunch attended to by Christians.

Hey don't knock it.. If you have never eaten Jesus how would you know whether or not he was tasty?

I don't know about atheists, but I know that hob is delusional.

Ha! Unbeliever!

Behold!

Jesus gave the world his flesh to eat. I shall give you a banana.

A banana with a couple of small coconuts hanging from a sack? You never quit about that, do you?

 

[WinterBorn]

from: Australopithecus | Characteristics & Facts

"Australopithecus, (Latin: “southern ape”) (genus Australopithecus), group of extinct primates closely related to, if not actually ancestors of, modern human beings and known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites in eastern, north-central, and southern Africa."

Let me help you see the key part of that post. "...known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites...".

but none of those links have a more complete skeleton other than known ape/monkey ,,,the rest is speculation as to their future


so again no proof they gave birth to humans

So your problem with Lucy was not that she was called a new species. It was because they claim she may be an ancestor of modern man?

Then, since we have no time machine, you can offer an opinion as to whether or not the claims are accurate. But you cannot call it an outright lie.

I dont recall call her a flat out lie, but to call her an ancestor of man is


you know you never told me how the media dig up a pigs tooth and made a full grown apeman out of it with nebraska man

And you never told me how kangaroos and sloths got on the Ark.

I never said a word about them,,,where as you made a direct claim on nebraska man

The fact remains that you expect me to answer your questions, while you refuse to answer mine.

But here, I'll help you out.

from:
"The existence of the primate was proposed by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922 based on the analysis of a tooth discovered by a rancher named Harold Cook in Nebraska in 1917. Osborn strongly believed it to be the tooth of a primate and gave it the genus Hesperopithecus which roughly translates as 'ape of the west'. He published his claim in American Museum Novitates.

Now Osborn was a paleontologist of some note — he was the first to identify both Tyrannosaurus rex, and Velociraptor — and was president of the American Museum of Natural History for 25 years (which, incidentally, was the publisher of the American Museum Novitates journal).

Having said that, Osborn was also very keen on eugenics, and among other things insisted that only the "negroid" race had descended from apes in Africa, whereas white people had evolved separately (and earlier). He even received an honorary doctorate from Hitler for his work on eugenics.[2]

So it is possible that Osborn had motivation to find evidence which supported his notion of an alternative evolutionary path for hominids. But regardless of Osborn's motives, his belief that he had found a primate tooth was not completely unreasonable.[3] A fossil of an antelope had been discovered in North America only a few years earlier, and this made the notion of a primate journeying from Africa or Asia plausible. Furthermore as a result of weathering and damage, the tooth did bear a striking resemblance to known hominid teeth.

Prudence would have suggested the best course of action at that time would have been to conduct further investigation. Osborn, however, gave in to hubris and had casts made of the tooth and submitted them to 26 institutions in Europe and North America. But the lack of corroborating evidence was a major issue, and for the most part, his discovery was ignored. One exception was the British anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith, who was so enthused he arranged for an artist to create a (fanciful) drawing of the new hominid.[3]

However, further investigation in 1925 at the site determined that the tooth was actually from a peccary (a pig-like mammal) and was not from a primate at all. Osborn did not mention the find in any of his writings after 1925. By 1927 Science magazine had published a formal retraction of the original claim.[4]

And thus, the Nebraska Man was consigned to the reject bin of scientific history, along with the tens of thousands of other discarded hypotheses that are a normal part of scientificprogress."

 

[WinterBorn]

from: Australopithecus | Characteristics & Facts

"Australopithecus, (Latin: “southern ape”) (genus Australopithecus), group of extinct primates closely related to, if not actually ancestors of, modern human beings and known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites in eastern, north-central, and southern Africa."

Let me help you see the key part of that post. "...known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites...".

but none of those links have a more complete skeleton other than known ape/monkey ,,,the rest is speculation as to their future


so again no proof they gave birth to humans

So your problem with Lucy was not that she was called a new species. It was because they claim she may be an ancestor of modern man?

Then, since we have no time machine, you can offer an opinion as to whether or not the claims are accurate. But you cannot call it an outright lie.

I dont recall call her a flat out lie, but to call her an ancestor of man is


you know you never told me how the media dig up a pigs tooth and made a full grown apeman out of it with nebraska man

So saying she may be an ancestor is a flat out lie? On what do you base that?

lack of proof and common scientific sense

now what about nebraska man

That is why science has the hypothesis and the theory. As you pointed out earlier in this thread, with a time machine none of this can be proven. The physical similarities are stark and undeniable. Sort of like the idea that Noah got 2 horses and all horse-like animals descended from them.

Ok, I answered the Nebraska man. No answer my question?