Your fav religious /anti religious vids

[Beefbisquit]

Sorry, then can you provide a proper definition for what you mean by "delusional"?

I actually already did, lol.

I too agree with what you have said, but many atheists on here make the stupid assumption that everyone who is a believer that wonders around here are all part of this big massive agenda driven religious indoctrinated cohort ready to be martyrs in the name of God!!! That is beyond stupid!!

Yes, that is stupid. It's very clear that some believers just want to believe, and be left alone without being attacked by atheists. Totally cool with that.
Here's where it gets murky; moderates attitudes following the "just leave me alone" standpoint are fine when dealing with people like you, Oly. But fundamentalists expect the same treatment, and they all fall under this giant protection net called religion. Up until recently, you couldn't even criticize religion at all without being ostracized and suffering incredible losses (you still do in some areas of North America) and you certainly couldn't openly be an atheist. As a retaliation, atheists and freethinkers seem to be doing a "shotgun" approach to all believers, "religious" or not and it's really not fair.

We can't use the "a few bad apples" analogy with things that involve peoples rights.

yes, but it has been said on here before by some intelligent atheists that anyone who believes in God has skewed vision of the world thus leading to skewed decisions when it comes to their work, disqualifying them immediately as fools

And for some things it actually does; like a young earth creationist becoming an evolutionary biologist or geologist is pretty much impossible. When you have the mind set that god created things, or that god can be an active variable in determining scientific outcome, it inhibits your ability to seek answers beyond a certain point. In other words, you have the ability to just say "god did it", whereas an atheist doesn't have that option and must continue to research, and investigate.

 

[olylifter420]

an evolutionary biologist or geologist is pretty much impossible.

why cant they contribute properly? and why is it limited to only those fields?

 

[cannabineer]

why cant they contribute properly? and why is it limited to only those fields?

I doubt it's limited to those fields, oly. (I'll add astrophysics to the list.) However the two fields mentioned have, at their very foundation, learned knowledge that is not possible for a creationist to reconcile with his beliefs and subsequent worldview. Imo Beefbisquit wasn't talking about any&all believers in that sentence; just the ones who think the literal scripture takes precedence over what we see when we observe without that bias. They are a minority among self-described believers ... but a vocal and influential one. cn

 

[olylifter420]

However the two fields mentioned have, at their very foundation, learned knowledge that is not possible for a creationist to reconcile with his beliefs and subsequent worldview

although you have been a chemist forever, your opinion does not hold merit as you cannot speak for the entire population within those fields. Unless you mean that our brain cannot comprehend something so complex, then i would have to disagree with you on that too...

 

[cannabineer]

although you have been a chemist forever, your opinion does not hold merit as you cannot speak for the entire population within those fields. Unless you mean that our brain cannot comprehend something so complex, then i would have to disagree with you on that too...

I can't speak for everyone, and quite independent of my profession, i have been a more-or-less serious amateur of/in all the natural scinces.
My point was this:
Creation doctrine requires that a young earth, the Noachic flood, and the idea of the fossil record as a divine prank be swallowed whole; debate is dismissed as unbelief.
The sciences of evolutionary biology, paleontology, geology and astrophysics can only made to work on a timescale of hundreds of millions to multiple billions of years. the two cannot be reconciled. cn

 

[olylifter420]

The sciences of evolutionary biology, paleontology, geology and astrophysics can only made to work on a timescale of hundreds of millions to multiple billions of years. the two cannot be reconciled.

again, i would say otherwise, you see, i posed this question to my anthropology professor and his response was that the world is open and as such their are plenty of people that have contributed to the field... i tried looking up that old discussion on my blackboard page but i dont have access to it anymore... he has been in the field for over 40 years, so i think he knows what he is talking about...

I believe the atheistic view that believers are simpletons who cannot do anything more complex then addition has no merit either. it is a biased opinion based on what they have experienced with religious nut jobs and extremists, therefore making their view skewed. the failure to consider that believers are just as intelligent as atheists is perplexing to say the least..

 

[cannabineer]

again, i would say otherwise, you see, i posed this question to my anthropology professor and his response was that the world is open and as such their are plenty of people that have contributed to the field... i tried looking up that old discussion on my blackboard page but i dont have access to it anymore... he has been in the field for over 40 years, so i think he knows what he is talking about...

I believe the atheistic view that believers are simpletons who cannot do anything more complex then addition has no merit either. it is a biased opinion based on what they have experienced with religious nut jobs and extremists, therefore making their view skewed. the failure to consider that believers are just as intelligent as atheists is perplexing to say the least..

Two things, oly ...
1) I am not taking a random swipe at believers in general. Beefy limited his statement to the all-out young-earthers, and I am doing the same. My arguments don't and shouldn't apply to the more thoughtful categories of believer.
2) Anthropology comes in two flavors ... physical and archeological anthropology on the one side, and sociocultural anthropology on the other. I accept the first as deserving the term "science". The second is famous for being a refuge for ideologues. Let's face it ... sociocultural anthropologusts are at the very heart of the postmodern, relativist intellectual morass whose extreme practitioners view everything as "social text" and will say amazing things like ... Einstein's theories are to be rejected as phallocentric. (facepalm smilie here) I don't have much respect for pols hiding in labcoats. cn

 

[Beefbisquit]

although you have been a chemist forever, your opinion does not hold merit as you cannot speak for the entire population within those fields. Unless you mean that our brain cannot comprehend something so complex, then i would have to disagree with you on that too...

Oly it's not like that. The two are just fundamentally opposed by their very descriptions.

Young earth creationists believe the world is 6000 years old, and reject all forms of radiometric dating one of the absolute fundamental tools of Geology and Archaeology. Likewise, YEC's also dismiss evolution which is the entire basis for our understanding of Biology today. What this means is you literally cannot have one without the other.

 

[MurshDawg]

Mursh ... do you have any examples of the bolded statement? I have been active in science for a long time and when someone arrives with a non-mainstream claim, the response I heard in every case I can remember is "convince me". The only time i have seen ostracism is for obviously pathological science or pseudoscience, usually with an agenda ... ancient aliens or ESP or Velikovsky's "electric universe" ... that sort of obvious unscience. You have me curious. cn

The latest thing I can site would be the findings of FTL neutrino's and the immediately rebuff by the community. Here I am not some quack who sits around and beats off to history channel, I am actually a student who enjoys learning. The practice of science that I see is to rebuff any unpopular idea or opinion despite empirical evidence to support the ideas. Until, that is, way too much popularity in society than all of a sudden proof will appear. In the early 1900s it was thought that a person who traveled more than 600 mph would die. We also couldn't break the sound barrier, split an atom, or send a man to the moon. @biscuit guy Your apparent knowledge has done nothing than to make you cynical and unkind. You really don't understand how much you are like religious radical such as the Inquisition; that is what makes you a dangerous person. Not like unlike someone who believes a jew turned water into wine with magic, you are hellbent on everyone thinking as you do. I guess that's what freedom is all about. Nothing is true, buscuitguy Not your hate speech, nor my crystal munching hippie speak. Dude the theory of evolution has as much proof as creationism and the ancient astronaut theory put together but really in the end it doesn't matter... never said said NOT believing in god makes one UNPRODUCTIVE. I said it made ME more productive. I have the span of all of Human History to fall back on. All of these societies that we have record of had religion in some measure. Well if I put Dr. Dick Dawkins to any phrase I'd be on my first step to being a pretentious cynical prick. Hmmmmmm, which one do you think a married man with children to raise would opt for?

 

[cannabineer]

Mursh, the FTL neutrino finding is a single data point ... it is certainly not established fact, nor is it proven nonsense at this time. Current theories in physics state that superluminal travel is in violation of basic nature of the universe ... at a rather more serious level than the human speed limit that armchair philosophers liked to bandy about. When presented with the FTL neutrino story a few weeks ago were "that is extraordinary" and "I'm not convinced". An experimental finding that upsets the theoretical applecart needs to be something that can be repeated on demand ... and precisely measured. Since, if true, the neutrino result would be revolutionary, I will say "convince me". Mind you, that is not the same as peremptorily saying "BS".

When cold fusion made the news back in '89, I was still with a university, and that news made quite a sensation. The general response was "let's see if this is real", combined with a lot of hope. It turned out to not be real. If you ask me, skepticism is a proper response to a controversial finding. Skepticism as a word gets some rough treatment ... champions of a given theory or doctrine or belief do their best to make "skeptic' mean "unprincipled naysayer". That is too bad imo and stifles honest productive debate, because it polarizes everything "Are you with us or against us?" is no way to learn new things in my personal but firmly-held opinion. cn

About human speed limits ... in the early 19th century, when steam trains became the fastest new mode of transport since the invention of the saddle, eminent doctors (the nearest thing to medical scientists of the day) claimed with complete confidence that mankind wasn't meant to travel faster than a horse could carry a person ... and predicted that people would horribly die from sheer speed on these newfangled unnatural vehicles.
When airplanes were invented ... same story, and of course the sound barrier was given the same treatment. I believe a group of doctors petitioned the President before the first Western space flight, claiming again the lethality of sheer speed.
Humans, even very well-educated humans, have this talent for believing weirdness. cn

 

[olylifter420]

physical anthropology is his thing neer.

Two things, oly ...
1) I am not taking a random swipe at believers in general. Beefy limited his statement to the all-out young-earthers, and I am doing the same. My arguments don't and shouldn't apply to the more thoughtful categories of believer.
2) Anthropology comes in two flavors ... physical and archeological anthropology on the one side, and sociocultural anthropology on the other. I accept the first as deserving the term "science". The second is famous for being a refuge for ideologues. Let's face it ... sociocultural anthropologusts are at the very heart of the postmodern, relativist intellectual morass whose extreme practitioners view everything as "social text" and will say amazing things like ... Einstein's theories are to be rejected as phallocentric. (facepalm smilie here) I don't have much respect for pols hiding in labcoats. cn

 

[Beefbisquit]

@biscuit guy Your apparent knowledge has done nothing than to make you cynical and unkind. You really don't understand how much you are like religious radical such as the Inquisition; that is what makes you a dangerous person.

That's just silly... are you going to bring up Nazi's next? Is that where this is headed? The Inquisition forced Catholicism on people, but it had nothing to do with science and reasoned thinking. It was dogmatic, superstitious thinking that caused it, not an excess of critical thinking. I don't want anyone to adopt my views, I want people to examine the evidence and make informed decisions that best conform to reality. If they don't want to, that's fine as long as it doesn't affect public life. Pretend your frickin' Napolean for all I care, just don't try to get an army and take over France.

Absolutely nothing about how I behave is anything even similar to the crusades.

Not like unlike someone who believes a jew turned water into wine with magic, you are hellbent on everyone thinking as you do. I guess that's what freedom is all about. Nothing is true, buscuitguy Not your hate speech, nor my crystal munching hippie speak.

Hate speech? I don't even know how to respond to something so irrational.

Dude the theory of evolution has as much proof as creationism and the ancient astronaut theory put together

Complete bullshit. Sorry, not bullshit, unsubstantiated, unintelligent, bullshit. Biology, and it's branches, are pretty much completely based off of evolution and they work at what they do extremely well. What other theory can explain how life evolved on earth and explain all the other branches of biology e.g. microbiology, marine biology, molecular biology, etc. etc.?

Good day, sir.

I have the span of all of Human History to fall back on. All of these societies that we have record of had religion in some measure.

Again, not true. There are records of atheistic societies that have zero creation myths and ideas about invisible beings in the sky, but what does this have to do with anything? Just a random point?

 

[ThE sAtIvA hIgH]

lets keep the thread for vids please .

 

[olylifter420]

Man shut up, you stupid bitch! This is thundertyping!

lets keep the thread for vids please .

 

[ThE sAtIvA hIgH]

Man shut up, you stupid bitch! This is thundertyping!

i made the thread for videos not banter , theres plenty of other threads you can have your faith ridiculed .

 

[cannabineer]

Man shut up, you stupid bitch! This is thundertyping!

That's like stereotyping, only ... much louder ... cn

 

[olylifter420]

It was in reference to thunderdome..

And shut tsh, you stupid bitch... How many threads have you jacked and ruined whiny little bitch...

Seems your stupid mum didnt teach you squat.. Sorry ass excuse for a box!

That's like stereotyping, only ... much louder ... cn

 

[Sure Shot]

Who came first, an atheist or religious type?

First recorded history at this time, is Ancient Sumeria. (Until we finish unearthing the site know as Göbekli Tepe)
Their text reads like a historical archive and is where modern religion gets the bulk of their beliefs!
Sumerian history says that the creators made slaves in their image named Adamu in the land of Edin. (Adam of Eden)
Also there is a story of a great flood. This culture knew more about Math, Geometry, and Astrology then any other culture know to Man.
It wasn't until the 1960's that we were able to confirm what this culture new 4000+ years ago!

[youtube]ObjiTKIPDjU#t=4232s[/youtube]
Skip forward to 1:10:32 for reference

 

[Beefbisquit]

Who came first, an atheist or religious type?

That's an extremely easy question to answer.

Atheists came first, but they weren't called atheists until theism was invented. Before theism, atheists were called..... people.

 

[Zaehet Strife]

I'm not a theologian, nor an atheist. I just admit the truth within myself.

I believe the truth, that i do not know.
-That is true inner strength, to admit your ignorance.

People just want to know so badly they will do anything, even lie to themselves..within themselves.
-That is true inner weakness, to advocate your arrogance.