The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[Hollie]

On ignore she goes, with the rest of the ignorami who don't add anything to any discussion.

It's better that you don't challenge me on the facts of science with your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

Run, coward.

 

[Abishai100]

Babel

It seems that our modern world of mercantilism-catalyzed globalization enables profiteerism philosophy to make capitalism seem conducive to nihilism and atheism, and even Hollywood (USA) movies such as "The Last Tycoon" (1976) reflect this sentiment.

Sometimes atheism seems like a 'short-cut to happiness,' since religion almost always requires devotion, diligence, and dutifulness.

However, atheism is its own formal philosophy and commands comparable respect of study.

When we think about the arrays of narcotics underworlds teeming in culture bordertowns such as Tijuana, Mexico, we may feel that atheism provides much needed breathing room for head-clearing thoughts about absolute pragmatism.

If we can separate sentimentalism from cynicism, then we can perhaps discuss atheism in terms of comfort.

Then, we can even use atheism to appreciate the emotional comfort that can be wrought from intricately ornate religions such as Catholicism.

The real Pandora's Box seems to be unmitigated speculaion.







Wall Street Money Never Sleeps - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[jillian]

Why the constant attacks on atheism by "christians"?

I just turned on the TV and before I changed the channel, there was some fundie yammering on about how I'll suffer eternity eternal fire and damnation if I don't believe what he does. Its not just one TV program - there are entire networks devoted to attacking those who don't believe in a magic sky fairy.

The brainwashing and propaganda is unrelenting. Everywhere we turn, there's more yelling and screeching that 'your way is the only way'.

Then there's the daily begging for proof that your god exists. Face it folks, there is no proof - either way.

As far as I know, only christians get this special and tax-free treatment.

You're free to believe whatever you want, whatever makes it possible for you to crawl out from under your bed every morning. You're welcome to it. If you want to believe some magical and invisible being created the planet, knock yourselves out. If you want to believe that humans co-existed with dinosaurs, yeah, its dumb but you're welcome to that too. Earth 4 thousand years old? Go ahead and preach that in your tax-free churches.

But quit attacking others for believing in facts and science. And keep your wackiness out of our schools and government buildings.

Is that really so much to ask?

Two points: First, Christians are not the only ones who get the "special and tax-free treatment". Any 501c does. Second, yes - it is too much to ask.

Yes, I did misspeak about other religions getting tax-free "treatmtnt". Sorry 'bout that.

As to "second", you'll have to change the Constitution because, as it stands now, religion is not allowed in our schools and govt buildings.

And of course, I'm sure the attacks will continue cuz christians are a very defensive and fearful lot.

Religion is not only allowed in our schools and government buildings, it is protected under the Constitution. This is the position paper from the ACLU and it is an accurate portrayal of how the law applies. Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools American Civil Liberties Union

the supreme court cases say otherwise. and if you're using government money, no, you don't get to insert it into our schools without equal time to other religions.

that said, with the wackadoodle on the court who believes satan is real, who knows how long sanity will remain in that particular area of law.

 

[jillian]

oh.. and PratchettFan, no... it is tax free because the power to tax is the power to destroy. that is why, in theory, even the real estate holdings of the church which are profit driven are tax exempt.

if it were that it was non-profit, the catholic church wouldn't be exempt from tax in NYC, being the largest holder of real property in the city. (or was... that might have changed some).

 

[sealybobo]

I'm not saying God can be proved.

I'm saying Atheists have a double standard on proof.

They demand evidence, especially hard evidence for God, but chuck all that for how life began. And then they play a deceptive game trying to hide under the "fact" of evolution when they know (or should) the origins of life isn't covered under evolution.

If you can't address that just admit it.

Snarky comments only highlights the vacuum of real debate you can bring to the subject.

It seems your real issue is that science has the means to explore the questions of how life began and you see that as a threat to the tales and fables of whatever creation story linked to whatever gawds will be displaced.

And just to bring you up to speed, biological evolution is as much a fact as anything in science can be termed a fact.

Um, no but that's a nice try attempting to turn it on it's head.

Atheists do NOT want to explore how life began. You can't want to explore unless you are open to ALL theories.

But atheists refuse to explore the possibility that God created it.

They will only accept theories that preclude God. But they have NO EVIDENCE TO DO THAT.

Either to accept God or exclude him. They have no evidence at all.

only in fundie zeaolotworld....

I get you and Hollie confused. Which one of you is Jewish?

i am. why?

I get you two confused. Are you religious? I think we agree on most things but I have offended you in the past when I talk about Jewish people. No offense. I talk smack about anybody who believes in god.

LOL. My one buddy said to me sarcastically the other day when I said I don't believe in god he said, "yea sealybobo, you're too smart for god"

 

[sealybobo]

Do you have anything to suggest that one or more of your polytheistic gawds created DNA. Why not share the evidence you have?

I'm not the one pretending my beliefs are proven by science.....

Well think about it. Talking snakes? 350 year old men? Living in a whales belly for 3 days and living to tell about it? Virgin births?

life crawling out of mud puddles struck by lightening.......single celled organisms turning into multicelled organisms........humans and eels having common ancestors......random shit happening randomly........

Its all true. And some things we still don't know yet. Some things we may never know.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

 

[sealybobo]

Do you have anything to suggest that one or more of your polytheistic gawds created DNA. Why not share the evidence you have?

I'm not the one pretending my beliefs are proven by science.....

Well think about it. Talking snakes? 350 year old men? Living in a whales belly for 3 days and living to tell about it? Virgin births?

life crawling out of mud puddles struck by lightening.......single celled organisms turning into multicelled organisms........humans and eels having common ancestors......random shit happening randomly........

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

 

[PratchettFan]

I've beaten atheists many times in my life. It's not as hard as you would think.

I shouldn't give up my secret but I will.

Here's the key. Atheists are hypocrites and because of that hypocrisy not nearly as smart as they think are.

How you say?

Well, let's take the way they demand HARD EVIDENCE for God. It you can't produce "evidence" God exists, then he can't.

BUT they treat Darwinism, Evolution, whatever you call it has hard fact.

Now HERE's the kicker, and this is how deceptive they are.

They say Creationism isn't "science" it's religion, BUT evolution is science.

But Creationism is not about Evolution it's about how life BEGAN. But atheists/evolutionists have NO HARD EVIDENCE for how life began. IN FACT, there isn't ANY HARD EVIDENCE for how life began.

There's only theories. Now theories are wonderful and atheists will go nuts twisting themselves into pretzels insisting that a theory is "proof" of how life began, BUT IT'S NOT.

Now why do they do that. Because then they would have to admit their "science" on how life began, has no more validity than Creationism, and therefore THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL AS THEORIES.

THEY CANNOT admit that. But press them on it and they will finally admit that how life began isn't EVEN really IN the theory of evolution. Why? Because no one KNOW how we really got here. That's why there are so many competing theories including the "alien seed" theory. No one really knows 100%.

Which means, it's all faith that your "theory" is correct. And Creationism is faith as well.

Atheists cannot admit that. That would mean they aren't any smarter or their beliefs have any more validity than those pesky Christians. They will twist themselves into pretzels rather than admit it.

But see how they create a double standard? They cite evolution as proof there is no God, but when pressed on it, will admit evolution doesn't even cover how life began. So how can it prove there is no God?

Answer: It can't!

Well run on posts are boring, so in my second post, I'll address the second double standard of atheism.

God is a theory just like the big bang is a theory.

Both assume that something came from nothing.

The simple fact is there is no downside to believing in a god or an afterlife if you're wrong it won't matter once you're dead if you're right then you live on.

It really makes sense to follow Pascal's wager

I suppose that depends upon how that belief is manifested.

 

[sealybobo]

Do you have anything to suggest that one or more of your polytheistic gawds created DNA. Why not share the evidence you have?

I'm not the one pretending my beliefs are proven by science.....

Well think about it. Talking snakes? 350 year old men? Living in a whales belly for 3 days and living to tell about it? Virgin births?

life crawling out of mud puddles struck by lightening.......single celled organisms turning into multicelled organisms........humans and eels having common ancestors......random shit happening randomly........

Science has demonstrably produced the most accurate and reliable models of the universe that mankind has ever known and it is upon these models that all modern technology, medicine and industry are based. Science only appears to be erratic because of sensationalist reporting in the popular media.

Science keeps changing because the tools used to perform science keep improving. When the universe of available evidence changes, scientific theories must be re-evaluated. There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honour any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena. Theories are rarely proven incorrect and are usually refined on a time-scale measured in centuries.

The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity. It is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods, but not necessarily discarding old ones. For example, when Einstein developed the General and Special Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton’s Principia. On the contrary, if the astronomically large, vanishingly small and extremely fast are removed from Einstein’s theories — phenomena Newton could not have observed — Newton’s equations are what remain. Einstein’s theories are simply expansions and refinements of Newton’s theories and thus increase our confidence in Newton’s work while providing a deeper understanding. The very same relationship applies to Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, and to Evolution and Genetics.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

“Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.” – Chapman Cohen

 

[PratchettFan]

Why the constant attacks on atheism by "christians"?

I just turned on the TV and before I changed the channel, there was some fundie yammering on about how I'll suffer eternity eternal fire and damnation if I don't believe what he does. Its not just one TV program - there are entire networks devoted to attacking those who don't believe in a magic sky fairy.

The brainwashing and propaganda is unrelenting. Everywhere we turn, there's more yelling and screeching that 'your way is the only way'.

Then there's the daily begging for proof that your god exists. Face it folks, there is no proof - either way.

As far as I know, only christians get this special and tax-free treatment.

You're free to believe whatever you want, whatever makes it possible for you to crawl out from under your bed every morning. You're welcome to it. If you want to believe some magical and invisible being created the planet, knock yourselves out. If you want to believe that humans co-existed with dinosaurs, yeah, its dumb but you're welcome to that too. Earth 4 thousand years old? Go ahead and preach that in your tax-free churches.

But quit attacking others for believing in facts and science. And keep your wackiness out of our schools and government buildings.

Is that really so much to ask?

Two points: First, Christians are not the only ones who get the "special and tax-free treatment". Any 501c does. Second, yes - it is too much to ask.

Yes, I did misspeak about other religions getting tax-free "treatmtnt". Sorry 'bout that.

As to "second", you'll have to change the Constitution because, as it stands now, religion is not allowed in our schools and govt buildings.

And of course, I'm sure the attacks will continue cuz christians are a very defensive and fearful lot.

Religion is not only allowed in our schools and government buildings, it is protected under the Constitution. This is the position paper from the ACLU and it is an accurate portrayal of how the law applies. Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools American Civil Liberties Union

the supreme court cases say otherwise. and if you're using government money, no, you don't get to insert it into our schools without equal time to other religions.

that said, with the wackadoodle on the court who believes satan is real, who knows how long sanity will remain in that particular area of law.

Supreme Court cases do not say otherwise. Please provide me with just one citation from the USSC which says religion is not allowed in public schools or public buildings. I'll wait.

 

[PratchettFan]

oh.. and PratchettFan, no... it is tax free because the power to tax is the power to destroy. that is why, in theory, even the real estate holdings of the church which are profit driven are tax exempt.

if it were that it was non-profit, the catholic church wouldn't be exempt from tax in NYC, being the largest holder of real property in the city. (or was... that might have changed some).

Perhaps you should spend a little time reading the tax law on 501c's.

 

[SmedlyButler]

There is evidence to support scientific theories. A lot of evidence.

of course.....many scientific theories are supported by evidence......however, not the claim that human beings evolved from single celled organisms........in that instance, only dreams......

does it bother you that you don't have any proof to demonstrate that is a "FACT"?......

Proof that evolution is a fact: Fossil evidence, sedimentary evidence, DNA, biological studies

except those things don't actually prove it......fossils are evidence that those creatures used to exist......they don't prove that there is a trail of evolution leading from single celled organisms to humans.......as pointed out before, DNA is equally proof of an intelligent designer......biological studies of what, the universe that God created?.......you have what you believe is evidence......I consider the same things to be evidence of what I believe......neither of us have "proof" acceptable to the other.....

An interesting area of evolutionary research involves mitochondria. You probably know they are ubiquitous and of prime importance in the energy transport system of cells. How would the idea that their presence in cells came about long after the origin of life fit in with the notion of a Creator whose work was a unique and one-time event? Did the idea come to Him after the events of Genesis and seemed such a great improvement He decided to do an upgrade?

Read the whole article here.

"Parasitic bacteria were the first cousins of the mitochondria that power cells in animals and plants -- and first acted as energy parasites in those cells before becoming beneficial, according to a new University of Virginia study that used next-generation DNA sequencing technologies to decode the genomes of 18 bacteria that are close relatives of mitochondria.
The origin of mitochondria began about 2 billion years ago and is one of the seminal events in the evolutionary history of life. However, little is known about the circumstances surrounding its origin, and that question is considered an enigma in modern biology.
"We believe this study has the potential to change the way we think about the event that led to mitochondria," said U.Va. biologist Martin Wu, the study's lead author. "We are saying that the current theories -- all claiming that the relationship between the bacteria and the host cell at the very beginning of the symbiosis was mutually beneficial -- are likely wrong.
"Instead, we believe the relationship likely was antagonistic -- that the bacteria were parasitic and only later became beneficial to the host cell by switching the direction of the ATP transport."

why do you believe they were not created at the same time?......is it because secular science tells you it would have take billions of years for it to occur as a result of random shit happening randomly.......

Yet more of the mindless rattling from people who get their science from fundamentalist Christian creation ministries.

In connection with your "random shit" comment, you make the mistake common among those absent any understanding of the processes associated with evolutionary science.

Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of loving and compassionate gods. Mass extinctions have little to do with natural selection. Natural selection can not act in the context of a catastrophic event like an asteroid impact. Survival through these events is based on luck, not adaptation.

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that an intelligent designer would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, intelligent design is not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling, not that you YEC'ists will be able to understand any of the above.

"Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that an intelligent designer would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, intelligent design is not."

Your "suboptimal solutions" (or "dysteleology" or "jury-rigged") argument is a good one for evolutionists and the constraints placed on evolutionary processes by nature are misunderstood or ignored by creationists. Natural selection isn't an active mechanism that reaches into a bag of tricks and picks an attribute to aid survival in a changing environment, it acts upon existing attributes or mutations that occur over time. And the understanding that time itself is an important factor in evolution is critical to understanding the whole process. I know you get this but most Creationists don't. The obvious take-away from my mitochondria reference was that life had existed for over a billion years before mitochondria became integral to the cell's structure and function. This fact either went over PP's head or he chose to ignore it.

There are thousands of examples of "suboptimal solutions" in the literature and of course Creationists have built up a library of counter arguments for each situation. They range from academically interesting to the just plain silly. I ran across one at creation.com that I think demonstrates the latter perfectly. In response to Gould's panda's thumb article one of their responses was;

"Were the Creator to have endowed the panda with a human-like thumb, this would be an instance of over-design. It would be akin to using a precision laser-cutter for opening tin cans when an ordinary can-opener can do the job adequately."

As if God was a parsimonious and lazy craftsman who just said "Shit, that's good enough".

One of my favorite examples of nature's jury-rigged end runs around a reproductive bottleneck is this one, it's a really good demonstration of adaptation and counter-adaptation over time;


"...( David Quammen) describes the bedbug Xylocaris Maculipennis and how it has adapted a curious way of reproduction, that of homosexual stabbing rape. Apparently some of the various bedbug species make use of a "mating plug" where once a male has mated with a female, the male "seals her shut" preventing other males from mating with her. Some species have adapted around this by stabbing rape, where the male impales the female and bypasses the mating plug. In Xylocaris Maculipennis, this has been taken one step further, where the male will impale and inseminate other males, and the rapist's genes enter the bloodstream to be carried to females by the victim. In this way, the rapist conceives by proxy."

If some God designed those systems he must have had a very non-elegant sense of design or a very bad sense of humor.

 

[sealybobo]

Why the constant attacks on atheism by "christians"?

I just turned on the TV and before I changed the channel, there was some fundie yammering on about how I'll suffer eternity eternal fire and damnation if I don't believe what he does. Its not just one TV program - there are entire networks devoted to attacking those who don't believe in a magic sky fairy.

The brainwashing and propaganda is unrelenting. Everywhere we turn, there's more yelling and screeching that 'your way is the only way'.

Then there's the daily begging for proof that your god exists. Face it folks, there is no proof - either way.

As far as I know, only christians get this special and tax-free treatment.

You're free to believe whatever you want, whatever makes it possible for you to crawl out from under your bed every morning. You're welcome to it. If you want to believe some magical and invisible being created the planet, knock yourselves out. If you want to believe that humans co-existed with dinosaurs, yeah, its dumb but you're welcome to that too. Earth 4 thousand years old? Go ahead and preach that in your tax-free churches.

But quit attacking others for believing in facts and science. And keep your wackiness out of our schools and government buildings.

Is that really so much to ask?

Two points: First, Christians are not the only ones who get the "special and tax-free treatment". Any 501c does. Second, yes - it is too much to ask.

Yes, I did misspeak about other religions getting tax-free "treatmtnt". Sorry 'bout that.

As to "second", you'll have to change the Constitution because, as it stands now, religion is not allowed in our schools and govt buildings.

And of course, I'm sure the attacks will continue cuz christians are a very defensive and fearful lot.

Religion is not only allowed in our schools and government buildings, it is protected under the Constitution. This is the position paper from the ACLU and it is an accurate portrayal of how the law applies. Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools American Civil Liberties Union

the supreme court cases say otherwise. and if you're using government money, no, you don't get to insert it into our schools without equal time to other religions.

that said, with the wackadoodle on the court who believes satan is real, who knows how long sanity will remain in that particular area of law.

Supreme Court cases do not say otherwise. Please provide me with just one citation from the USSC which says religion is not allowed in public schools or public buildings. I'll wait.

The First Amendment prohibits state sponsorship of religion.

So you can pray in school but you can't have the lords prayer hanging on the wall in a public building. That's why all over the country they are making you guys take them down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You should have seen the angry Christians at the town hall meeting. They would have burned her at the stake if they could have.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion.

In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a popular talk radio show. Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

“I was amazed,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, which is based in Wisconsin and has given Jessica $13,000 from support and scholarship funds. “We haven’t seen a case like this in a long time, with this level of revilement and ostracism and stigmatizing.”

 

[jillian]

It seems your real issue is that science has the means to explore the questions of how life began and you see that as a threat to the tales and fables of whatever creation story linked to whatever gawds will be displaced.

And just to bring you up to speed, biological evolution is as much a fact as anything in science can be termed a fact.

Um, no but that's a nice try attempting to turn it on it's head.

Atheists do NOT want to explore how life began. You can't want to explore unless you are open to ALL theories.

But atheists refuse to explore the possibility that God created it.

They will only accept theories that preclude God. But they have NO EVIDENCE TO DO THAT.

Either to accept God or exclude him. They have no evidence at all.

only in fundie zeaolotworld....

I get you and Hollie confused. Which one of you is Jewish?

i am. why?

I get you two confused. Are you religious? I think we agree on most things but I have offended you in the past when I talk about Jewish people. No offense. I talk smack about anybody who believes in god.

LOL. My one buddy said to me sarcastically the other day when I said I don't believe in god he said, "yea sealybobo, you're too smart for god"

the only thing that offends me is Israel bashing and the double standard applied to Israel and the justification of terrorists.

beyond that, I don't mind what anyone believes or doesn't believe as long as they don't try to impose it on others or use it to hurt others.

i'm not religious, but I do believe In a higher power.

and yes, we agree on most things.

I have these conversations with my 17 year old. he thinks he's too smart for G-d, too.

 

[jillian]

oh.. and PratchettFan, no... it is tax free because the power to tax is the power to destroy. that is why, in theory, even the real estate holdings of the church which are profit driven are tax exempt.

if it were that it was non-profit, the catholic church wouldn't be exempt from tax in NYC, being the largest holder of real property in the city. (or was... that might have changed some).

Perhaps you should spend a little time reading the tax law on 501c's.

the regulations don't tell you the underlying reasons for not taxing churches.

but thanks for your advice.

 

[jillian]

Two points: First, Christians are not the only ones who get the "special and tax-free treatment". Any 501c does. Second, yes - it is too much to ask.

Yes, I did misspeak about other religions getting tax-free "treatmtnt". Sorry 'bout that.

As to "second", you'll have to change the Constitution because, as it stands now, religion is not allowed in our schools and govt buildings.

And of course, I'm sure the attacks will continue cuz christians are a very defensive and fearful lot.

Religion is not only allowed in our schools and government buildings, it is protected under the Constitution. This is the position paper from the ACLU and it is an accurate portrayal of how the law applies. Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools American Civil Liberties Union

the supreme court cases say otherwise. and if you're using government money, no, you don't get to insert it into our schools without equal time to other religions.

that said, with the wackadoodle on the court who believes satan is real, who knows how long sanity will remain in that particular area of law.

Supreme Court cases do not say otherwise. Please provide me with just one citation from the USSC which says religion is not allowed in public schools or public buildings. I'll wait.

The First Amendment prohibits state sponsorship of religion.

So you can pray in school but you can't have the lords prayer hanging on the wall in a public building. That's why all over the country they are making you guys take them down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You should have seen the angry Christians at the town hall meeting. They would have burned her at the stake if they could have.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion.

In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a popular talk radio show. Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

“I was amazed,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, which is based in Wisconsin and has given Jessica $13,000 from support and scholarship funds. “We haven’t seen a case like this in a long time, with this level of revilement and ostracism and stigmatizing.”

^^^^

that

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've beaten atheists many times in my life. It's not as hard as you would think.

I shouldn't give up my secret but I will.

Here's the key. Atheists are hypocrites and because of that hypocrisy not nearly as smart as they think are.

How you say?

Well, let's take the way they demand HARD EVIDENCE for God. It you can't produce "evidence" God exists, then he can't.

BUT they treat Darwinism, Evolution, whatever you call it has hard fact.

Now HERE's the kicker, and this is how deceptive they are.

They say Creationism isn't "science" it's religion, BUT evolution is science.

But Creationism is not about Evolution it's about how life BEGAN. But atheists/evolutionists have NO HARD EVIDENCE for how life began. IN FACT, there isn't ANY HARD EVIDENCE for how life began.

There's only theories. Now theories are wonderful and atheists will go nuts twisting themselves into pretzels insisting that a theory is "proof" of how life began, BUT IT'S NOT.

Now why do they do that. Because then they would have to admit their "science" on how life began, has no more validity than Creationism, and therefore THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL AS THEORIES.

THEY CANNOT admit that. But press them on it and they will finally admit that how life began isn't EVEN really IN the theory of evolution. Why? Because no one KNOW how we really got here. That's why there are so many competing theories including the "alien seed" theory. No one really knows 100%.

Which means, it's all faith that your "theory" is correct. And Creationism is faith as well.

Atheists cannot admit that. That would mean they aren't any smarter or their beliefs have any more validity than those pesky Christians. They will twist themselves into pretzels rather than admit it.

But see how they create a double standard? They cite evolution as proof there is no God, but when pressed on it, will admit evolution doesn't even cover how life began. So how can it prove there is no God?

Answer: It can't!

Well run on posts are boring, so in my second post, I'll address the second double standard of atheism.

God is a theory just like the big bang is a theory.

Both assume that something came from nothing.

The simple fact is there is no downside to believing in a god or an afterlife if you're wrong it won't matter once you're dead if you're right then you live on.

It really makes sense to follow Pascal's wager

I suppose that depends upon how that belief is manifested.

That's your choice though isn't it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes, I did misspeak about other religions getting tax-free "treatmtnt". Sorry 'bout that.

As to "second", you'll have to change the Constitution because, as it stands now, religion is not allowed in our schools and govt buildings.

And of course, I'm sure the attacks will continue cuz christians are a very defensive and fearful lot.

Religion is not only allowed in our schools and government buildings, it is protected under the Constitution. This is the position paper from the ACLU and it is an accurate portrayal of how the law applies. Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools American Civil Liberties Union

the supreme court cases say otherwise. and if you're using government money, no, you don't get to insert it into our schools without equal time to other religions.

that said, with the wackadoodle on the court who believes satan is real, who knows how long sanity will remain in that particular area of law.

Supreme Court cases do not say otherwise. Please provide me with just one citation from the USSC which says religion is not allowed in public schools or public buildings. I'll wait.

The First Amendment prohibits state sponsorship of religion.

So you can pray in school but you can't have the lords prayer hanging on the wall in a public building. That's why all over the country they are making you guys take them down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You should have seen the angry Christians at the town hall meeting. They would have burned her at the stake if they could have.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion.

In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a popular talk radio show. Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

“I was amazed,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, which is based in Wisconsin and has given Jessica $13,000 from support and scholarship funds. “We haven’t seen a case like this in a long time, with this level of revilement and ostracism and stigmatizing.”

^^^^

that

The constitution does not mention sponsorship.

"Congress shall pass no laws establishing....or prohibiting the free exercise..."

So tell me does passing a law stating that a teacher can't have a prayer in a frame on her desk violate the first amendment?

 

[jillian]

Religion is not only allowed in our schools and government buildings, it is protected under the Constitution. This is the position paper from the ACLU and it is an accurate portrayal of how the law applies. Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools American Civil Liberties Union

the supreme court cases say otherwise. and if you're using government money, no, you don't get to insert it into our schools without equal time to other religions.

that said, with the wackadoodle on the court who believes satan is real, who knows how long sanity will remain in that particular area of law.

Supreme Court cases do not say otherwise. Please provide me with just one citation from the USSC which says religion is not allowed in public schools or public buildings. I'll wait.

The First Amendment prohibits state sponsorship of religion.

So you can pray in school but you can't have the lords prayer hanging on the wall in a public building. That's why all over the country they are making you guys take them down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You should have seen the angry Christians at the town hall meeting. They would have burned her at the stake if they could have.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion.

In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a popular talk radio show. Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

“I was amazed,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, which is based in Wisconsin and has given Jessica $13,000 from support and scholarship funds. “We haven’t seen a case like this in a long time, with this level of revilement and ostracism and stigmatizing.”

^^^^

that

The constitution does not mention sponsorship.

"Congress shall pass no laws establishing....or prohibiting the free exercise..."

So tell me does passing a law stating that a teacher can't have a prayer in a frame on her desk violate the first amendment?

it does not NEED to mention "sponsorship". it says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT. what do you think the distinction is? Religious tests for public office or voting, etc, are also prohibited.

if someone can't avoid praying for eight hours, they shouldn't be in a public school. they should go to a parochial school.

does caselaw prohibit a teacher from having a prayer on her desk?? and how would you feel if that prayer was a muslim prayer? is it then not appealing to you?

 

[PostmodernProph]

does it bother you that you don't have any proof to demonstrate that is a "FACT"?......

Proof that evolution is a fact: Fossil evidence, sedimentary evidence, DNA, biological studies

except those things don't actually prove it......fossils are evidence that those creatures used to exist......they don't prove that there is a trail of evolution leading from single celled organisms to humans.......as pointed out before, DNA is equally proof of an intelligent designer......biological studies of what, the universe that God created?.......you have what you believe is evidence......I consider the same things to be evidence of what I believe......neither of us have "proof" acceptable to the other.....

An interesting area of evolutionary research involves mitochondria. You probably know they are ubiquitous and of prime importance in the energy transport system of cells. How would the idea that their presence in cells came about long after the origin of life fit in with the notion of a Creator whose work was a unique and one-time event? Did the idea come to Him after the events of Genesis and seemed such a great improvement He decided to do an upgrade?

Read the whole article here.

"Parasitic bacteria were the first cousins of the mitochondria that power cells in animals and plants -- and first acted as energy parasites in those cells before becoming beneficial, according to a new University of Virginia study that used next-generation DNA sequencing technologies to decode the genomes of 18 bacteria that are close relatives of mitochondria.
The origin of mitochondria began about 2 billion years ago and is one of the seminal events in the evolutionary history of life. However, little is known about the circumstances surrounding its origin, and that question is considered an enigma in modern biology.
"We believe this study has the potential to change the way we think about the event that led to mitochondria," said U.Va. biologist Martin Wu, the study's lead author. "We are saying that the current theories -- all claiming that the relationship between the bacteria and the host cell at the very beginning of the symbiosis was mutually beneficial -- are likely wrong.
"Instead, we believe the relationship likely was antagonistic -- that the bacteria were parasitic and only later became beneficial to the host cell by switching the direction of the ATP transport."

why do you believe they were not created at the same time?......is it because secular science tells you it would have take billions of years for it to occur as a result of random shit happening randomly.......

I would say it is because of the age of fossils. If all species were created at the same time ( a massively crowded environment) you would expect to find mastodon fossils in the same strata of rock as triceratops. You don't.

That evolution happens is a fact. The theory is about how it happens.

I think you're going to be hard pressed to find that many fossils of one and two celled organisms.....