The Anti-theist Thread

[Cirdan]

AUTHOR: Henri Frédéric Amiel (1821–1881)
QUOTATION: The efficacy of religion lies precisely in what is not rational, philosophic or eternal; its efficacy lies in the unforeseen, the miraculous, the extraordinary. Thus religion attracts more devotion according as it demands more faith,—that is to say, as it becomes more incredible to the profane mind. The philosopher aspires to explain away all mysteries, to dissolve them into light. Mystery on the other hand is demanded and pursued by the religious instinct; mystery constitutes the essence of worship, the power of proselytism. When the “cross” became the “foolishness” of the cross, it took possession of the masses.

[afro-elf]

Too bad it was a frenchman who said it

[Cirdan]

und perhaps you vould like a nice german...

Religion is usually nothing but a supplement to or even a substitute for education, and nothing is religious in the strict sense which is not a product of freedom. Thus one can say: The freer, the more religious; and the more education, the less religion.

Friedrich Von Schlegel (1772–1829)

[afro-elf]

or an inner city youth


Yo! That stuff is whack!

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
"science would provide a theory". Only religions would pretend to know what happened at the beginning of the universe.

About ten billion years ago, the Universe began in a gigantic explosion... A Brief History of our Universe

(Taken From the Campbridge university web page)

space started expanding about 15 billion years ago...The Big Bang is actually not a "theory" at all, but rather a scenario about the early moments of our universe, for which the evidence is overwhelming.

(This one's from some guy at Harvard)

Before the universe as we now know it existed, there was no space or time...

Oh, wow. It certainly sounds like these people are claiming know something about the beginning of the universe... What does that say to you?

As for your continued refusal to answer me (and I have not asked much), I can only assume that, as I stated at the beginninng, you can't. I must see about bringing in someone who's at least willing to try...

[Wayfarer]

One more question, wait, make that two:

Are you searching for truth?
Do you believe that human thought is subjective?

My reasoning is this: Modern thought claims that science is a, make that the tool which we use to learn the objective truth. However, this philosophy also holds that the objective truth is that all human thought is subjective. Now, since human thought is subjective, and science is a product of human thought, then it is impossible for [human] science to learn the objective truth.

What do they say about having enough rope?

[Earniel]

Your last comment puzzled me a bit. (Everybody hold your breath Eärniel is going to try her hand on THINKING for once and she'll probably miss the point anyway) The human mind is - I believe - subjective to a certain level but not only that. Is 2+2=4 subjective or objective? I'd say it's objective. I can comprehend this, therefore my thoughts can handle something objective.

Mmm, does this make any sense or should I go and hide?

[Wayfarer]

You should go and hide... But first...

Read This. A Little Humour to lighten the atmosphere.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Wayfarer


Oh, wow. It certainly sounds like these people are claiming know something about the beginning of the universe... What does that say to you?

As for your continued refusal to answer me (and I have not asked much), I can only assume that, as I stated at the beginninng, you can't. I must see about bringing in someone who's at least willing to try...

It says to me that they, like you, take comfort in absolutes, a sign of intellectual weakness.

No referring page... These people can claim whatever they like. I don't follow any formal or dogmatic adherence to any "belief" based on conjecture or extrapolation derived from mathmatic theory, as I have stated repeatedly. It is a natural state of the human mind to seek finality to enigmatic questions of existence.

I don't subscribe to the idea that the "big bang theory" which, despite whatever quotes you may find, is still a theory by definition, is the absolute answer. There have been recent discoveries about the amount of dark matter, about the nature of gravity, and other evidence from new remote sensing techniques, to change the thought vector on the origin of the universe. Since the mathmatical analysis breaks down in seconds just after the theorectical origin due to the distortion of time, there is a possibility that there is no begining and no end but rather a cyclical rebirth. It has been recently determined that the amount of dark matter at the center of galaxies is much greater than previously. A possible senario is that as the size and number of dark objects increase, the universe would stop expanding and begin to contract. The compaction of all time and space to a critical point could then trigger another "big bang" starting the cycle all over again.

There has been much discussion of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. The nature of a "black hole" is to acrete matter. As matter is aculmulated the gravitational field becomes stronger, a self re-enforcing cycle which defies the "eventuality of entropy".

I think your question was how can I prove god doesn't exist (please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm sure you'll do ). I would use the same technique as I would for proving that Santa Claus doesn't exist; there are many impostors, pictures, stories, and songs about him, but the real thing never shows up and no sane adult claims to have seen him. He has no mass, no charge, no field properties, no measurable parameters of any kind.

You have never answered my question about your belief in creationism. How do you explain the extensive fossil record of non-fluvial or alluvial sedimentary rocks like limestones and chalks. These rocks, interbedded with the sedimentary rocks you attribute you a great flood, are derived from living organisms such as chalk, foraminifera, plankton, etc. Unless these animals and plant grew at the speed of light then it is impossible to attribute the massive sedimetary rock records throughout the world to 40 days of real bad weather.

As to the age of the world, how do you reconcile the record of geomagnetic reversals along sea floor spreading zones. The growth from a consistent source of magma shows that there is a consistent pattern of reversals over a period of millions of years. Even if you make your usual arguement that radiometric dating is not accurate, why aren't we experiencing regular reversals which would support your supposition of a much younger earth based on biblical text? Magnetism and poloarity have been known to humans since the early greeks yet no one have ever reported evidence of reversals in written history?

There is a theologian at a local seminary school who is in legal conflict with the school because he believes the bible but believes that the immaculate conception and the resurrection were concocted after christ's death to make his story more "marketable". Jews beleive in the god of abraham but do not subscribe to the christian concept of salvation. Muslims believe in the god of abraham but believe that ishmail and not isaiah was the true prophet of abraham. Each group considers the other an infidel and doomed to hell. How do you reconcile the inconsistency of ideas regarding the monotheistic legacy of abraham's revolutionary concept of a single god. Historically, it was very powerful as it expanded a religion's influence from the traditional regional deities to a single, mass marketable concept that could pass national and ethnic boundaries. What went wrong? Why would god want people to be so confused about his message? You may blame it on human error but all parties have equal footing in their claims since they are all claiming contact and instruction from god?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
One more question, wait, make that two:

Are you searching for truth?
Do you believe that human thought is subjective?

My reasoning is this: Modern thought claims that science is a, make that the tool which we use to learn the objective truth. However, this philosophy also holds that the objective truth is that all human thought is subjective. Now, since human thought is subjective, and science is a product of human thought, then it is impossible for [human] science to learn the objective truth.

What do they say about having enough rope?

Sam would say you can't have too much rope

You should look into theistic existentialism. Kierkegaard is pretty good. The problem is, of course, useless you experience it, it is not real for you. It makes it difficult to accept things which you don't experience. Kida limits your options.

Human thought is not purely subjective; this is a faulty assumption.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
My reasoning is this: Modern thought claims that science is a, make that the tool which we use to learn the objective truth. However, this philosophy also holds that the objective truth is that all human thought is subjective. Now, since human thought is subjective, and science is a product of human thought, then it is impossible for [human] science to learn the objective truth.

Adding on to that, science is, or should be empiracle, and objective. Analysing data, that is viewable, and measurable. However, this obviously, can only be applicable to historical, and ethnographical applications in the history of hominids. Obviously, any further back in time, is a mixture of both - objective arguments based on the data, and subjectivity, in terms of the models devised to explain this data. Furthermore, ethnography, experimental archaeology et al, can be utilised in modern Hunter-Gatherer groups to gather data objectively. As much as I dislike uniformitarianism, there are some parallels to between modern, and pre-historic cultures, and with regard to this argument, you could gain objective, and empiracle accounts from ethnography, and apply them to the fossil record evidence.

Moving along: how can you study humans objectively? Humankind has had a *huge* impact upon the environment, and exhibit complex responses to the "cause and effect" mechanism. To study the human in a completely objective way, would not solve any problems in terms of our past. There are certainly some aspects of our nature that need to be analysed in a subjective manner, ie religion, social behaviour, and art. It is not enough in these cases, to completely be objective. The fact of the matter is, that we need to utilise both techniques, in undertaking the study of Homo sapiens sapiens, but we need to know where exactly to draw the line.

[BeardofPants]

On a completely different note: how many out there are Mac owners? According to this article, here, we are apparently satanists.

Oh well: dark side here I come.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
On a completely different note: how many out there are Mac owners? According to this article, here, we are apparently satanists.

Oh well: dark side here I come.

LOL!!! I thought it was a hoax site until I looked around. Remember... apple spelled sideways is satan.

[Rána Eressëa]

Ah, yes: a new signature for the occassion.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan

LOL!!! I thought it was a hoax site until I looked around. Remember... apple spelled sideways is satan.

However, these propagandists aren't just targeting the young. Take for example Apple Computers, makers of the popular Macintosh line of computers. The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.

This is one of the most pathetic things I have EVER read. Also - I didn't know that Macs are using "lickable" buttons. Must be a new thing where you lick your screen when you want to move the pointer or press a button. Funny it's never been mentioned in any of my java magazines or other programming and computer magazines I read. But hell - they usually spout on and on about anti-religious stuff anyway. Come to think of it - most of the sample programs revolve around proving evolution and that god doesn't exist.

I want to say something regarding this guys intellectual capacity - but I'm afraid it'll come out as calling all "believers" dumb.

According to this guys definition of communism - java is cummunistic, so is netscape, linux, PHP Bulletin Board (which VBulletin was developed from) and 1000's of other programs. All these are open source that is freely downloadable. You can see the actuall code and make modifications to them.

This company is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult. Consider co-founder and leader Steve Jobs' constant exhortation through advertising (i.e. mind control) that its followers should "think different" . We have to ask ourselves: "think different than whom or what?" The disturbing answer is that they want us to think different than our Christian upbringing, to reject all the values that we have been taught and to heed not the message of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Who is attempting to control whom here???

ADDENDUM IV (4/21/2002): Apparently anti-Christian zealots -- as well as shocked Christians who have unwittingly become Mac owners -- are linking to this article, which explains the large number of emails we have received on this topic. More clues have come in showing the dark nature of Apple Computers. According to one of our readers, the new MacOS X contains another Satanic holdover from the "BSD Unix" OS mentioned above; to open up certain locked files one has to run a program much like the DOS prompt in Microsoft Windows and type in a secret code: "chmod 666". What other horrors lurk in this thing?

I also loved that one. Sorry to break the news to him - but computers work by numbers. Basically - the permissions for UNIX/Linux based systems are set by adding numbers together. The first number represents owner, second the group and last others. A 1 gives permission to excecute, a 2 permission to write and 4 permission to read. To give everyone read and write access to a file - you set it to 666. 2+4 for the owner, 2+4 for the group and 2+4 for everyone else. This is known as binary arthimetic - the heart of ALL computers. It is at the very basic level of the computer - and has nothing to do with satanism.

I loved the devil so much in his article - I had to use it for my avatar. How does everyone like it?

[Andúril]

The rejection of God is in itself an evil act, and the basis of all subsequent evil acts

How do you reject something that you have no belief in? You have to acknowledge the existence of God before you can reject/accept him. Therefore, atheists are not evil.

I do believe that athiests can't be good people, because of this simple provision: People can't be good people. If we could, through effort, make ourselves good, salfvation would be unnescessary and christianity would be pointless. But there is a way that we can be saved anyway.

What is this word "good"? Your interpretation of good is different to others, and you have already assumed that yours is correct. Besides this, you say that atheists can't be good people, and base that on the assumption that people can't be good people. Surely theists also make up all people? Then theists too, according to your theory, cannot be good.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I loved the devil so much in his article - I had to use it for my avatar. How does everyone like it?

It looks great!! Very cute.

[afro-elf]

Guess what I'm doing

I'm reading satanic verses in Saudi Arabia

[emplynx]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
This link explains a dating method that can go back earlier than 60,000 years. Also, at the beginning of either this thread, or the theist one, I posted other dating methods that could go back earlier.

I have been reading up on radiocarbon dating. It doesn't work. Multiple studies have shown that the carbon-14 has not yet reached equallibrium so the amount in ancient life forms cannot be compaired to the amount in modern ones so it is very inaccurate. The reason it hasn't reached equallibrium? It takes 30 thousand years (based on its formation and breakup in the atmosphere) and the earth is not yet 30 years old.

One study in South Africa dated a painting that was supposed to be the oldest ever found in the South African bush. It was put into the media and a teacher recognized it as a painting her students had done recently that had been stolen!

[BeardofPants]

I have been reading up on radiocarbon dating. It doesn't work. Multiple studies have shown that the carbon-14 has not yet reached equallibrium so the amount in ancient life forms cannot be compaired to the amount in modern ones so it is very inaccurate. The reason it hasn't reached equallibrium? It takes 30 thousand years (based on its formation and breakup in the atmosphere) and the earth is not yet 30 years old.

One study in South Africa dated a painting that was supposed to be the oldest ever found in the South African bush. It was put into the media and a teacher recognized it as a painting her students had done recently that had been stolen!

What's wrong with this paragraph?

~ Earth is older than 30,000BP
~ Again: callibration.
~ Painting? What was it dating exactly?
~ All radiometric dating has a +/- accuracy of 2 - 3%
~ Can't use carbon dating after 1950AD.
~ Painting story: sounds like b/s to me.
~ There are other forms of dating that are not based on radiometric.
~ What site did you get your information from? It's all grossly inaccurate. [c.f. Earth as 30 years old?!]