By Dan Merica, CNN
Washington (CNN) - American Atheists, an outspoken organization that advocates for atheists nationwide, will have a booth at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference.
The atheist institution, which is well known for its controversial billboards and media campaigns, informed CNN of its inclusion on Monday night, and a representative from CPAC confirmed that the group will have a booth at the annual national gathering of conservative leaders and activists in March. American Atheists hopes to use the forum to tap into the conservative movement and bring conservative atheists “out of the closet.”
“Just as there are many closeted atheists in the church pews, I am extremely confident that there are many closeted atheists in the ranks of conservatives," said David Silverman, president of American Atheists.
Silverman said coming to CPAC will be “the first step of many” in reaching out to Republicans.
Follow @danmericacnn Follow @CNNbelief
“It is really a serious outreach effort, and I am very pleased to be embarking on it,” Silverman said.
The group’s inclusion is believed to be the first time that atheists have been involved in the conservative political gathering that has long been associated with Christian conservatives.
The Conservative Political Action Committee, the largest and oldest gathering of conservatives, is run by the American Conservative Union and will be held at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor in Maryland from March 6 to 8. Last year, the event brought together thousands of activists to listen to dozens of Republican leaders speak about everything from economics and foreign policy to social issues. The event has long been considered a required stop for Republican presidential hopefuls.
Meghan Snyder, spokeswoman for CPAC, said American Atheists were included in the confab because “conservatives have always stood for freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”
“The folks we have been working with stand for many of the same liberty-oriented policies and principles we stand for,” Snyder said in an e-mail to CNN.
Tony Perkins, president of the Christian conservative think-tank Family Research Council, doesn't see it that way. In an email to CNN, a rankled Perkins wrote that the atheist group does "not seek to add their voice to the chorus of freedom."
"CPAC's mission is to be an umbrella for conservative organizations that advance liberty, traditional values and our national defense," said Perkins, who spokes at CPAC in 2012. "Does the American Conservative Union really think the liberties and values they seek to preserve can be maintained when they partner with individuals and organizations that are undermining the understanding that our liberties come from God? Thomas Jefferson warned against such nonsense."
The social conservative leader added: "If this is where the ACU is headed, they will have to pack up and put away the 'C' in CPAC!"
In explaining why the group decided to join CPAC, Silverman cited a 2012 Pew Research study that found 20% of self-identified conservatives consider themselves religiously unaffiliated. While that does not mean they are atheists, Silverman believes learning more about atheism will make it more likely conservatives will choose to identify with those who believe there is no God.
“Conservative isn’t a synonym for religious,” Silverman said. “I am not worried about making the Christian right angry. The Christian right should be angry that we are going in to enlighten conservatives. The Christian right should be threatened by us.”
American Atheists paid $3,000 for booth 439 in the event’s exhibition hall. Their booth will be right next to the Republican National Committee's booth, according to the room map.
American Atheists is known as the in-your-face contingent in the world of atheist activists, and the group’s members pride themselves as being the “Marines" of the atheist movement.
The group has long targeted Republican lawmakers, although Silverman considers the organization nonpartisan.
In 2013, American Atheists launched a billboard campaign against three Republican politicians: former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. All three Republicans have spoken at CPAC in the past.
In one billboard, Santorum is pictured to the left of a quote attributed to him. “Our civil laws have to comport with a higher law. God’s law,” the quote reads. Underneath the graphic is a tagline: "GO GODLESS INSTEAD."
The group has also prided itself on trying to reach into religious communities and bring people out of the closet. In 2012, American Atheists asked Jews and Muslims to come out of the closet in a targeted billboard campaign.
In addition to Silverman, Amanda Knief, American Atheist’s managing director, and Dave Muscato, the group’s spokesman, will attend CPAC. Silverman said they will be prepared to respond to questions from conference attendees.
UPDATE: CPAC reversed their decision and will not allow American Atheists to have an exhibition booth at the conservative conference.
dalahast/AE, your crazy creation story does a good job of proving that your religion is complete nonsense, when read without the confirmation bias that you are asking for. It does not stand up to scrutiny without such confirmation bias, and there is no evidence that you can produce to support your absurd beliefs.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
I guess when Pope Benedict accepted the Christmas gift from Uganda's senate representative that they would "kill all the gays" in Uganda, I think that speaks a lot to the result we see today – widespread panic and fear for homosexuals living in Uganda, knowing that they can be jailed or killed at any time since this recent bill passed there. I think it also is very telling about Catholicism – I mean if you start from the top down...
I suppose when the only Anglican bishop that was making a different to quell hysteria and fears there over gays was stripped of his position, that only contributed to the result we see today. I think that is also very telling about Anglicanism.. if you start from the top down….
I suppose when Scott Lively and his team of evangelicals from the U.S. traveled to Uganda and incited hysteria and violence against gays, that had a lot to do with the situation we see today. That's a bit different. There doesn't seem to be a "top" of evangelicals. And so we just see more divisions, more conflict of interpretation, more difference in judgment upon one another.
Why should we be at all surprised at what is going on in Uganda and elsewhere?
Why do some Christians from the U.S. travel to other countries and incite violence against people?
Why do some Christians officially categorizes the Pope as the Antichrist?
Why do some Christians help spread disease (because of the unrealistic stance on contraception)?
Why do some Christians let sick child die rather than seek medical care?
Why do some Christians treat women still as inferiors in their organization?
Why do some Christians still sacrifice people?
Why do some Christians believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that Christ will return to Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri?
Why do some Christians believe that Americans are being killed at war because America is tolerant of homosexuals?
Why do some Christians believe the OT is superseded by the NT and some not?
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." –Thomas Jefferson
People enter into belief states because the mind is unable to cope with the reality of death in a lot of people. See below post.
Stalin 20-60 million
Mao at least 45 million
Pol Pot 1.7 million
Kim Il Sung 1.6 million
HAHAHA :-D :-D :-D Can atheists get any more ridiculous? There's some people in the crowd of atheists who claim there's no God, monkeying around holding a banner that says; "Impeach God". Can anyone not understand yet why I say that atheism is Total stupidity? :-D :-D :-D
I mean, the hypocrisy of these people is beyond belief!! :-D :-D :-D Their absolute dishonesty and pathological lying is driving them further and further away from the realm of men or reason and reasonable men. Therefore once more, atheism is Total stupidity all over, here there, anywhere everywhere, all the time anytime, every single time and forevermore.
I suppose these strange posts are similar to spreading garlic above the door to ward off vampires. I wonder if the poster is allowed to interface with the public..
Yes they are more ridiculous than what I thought.
HAHAHA :-D :-D :-D Can Salero21 get any more ridiculous? Can anyone not understand yet why I say that Salero21 is Total stupidity? :-D :-D :-D
I mean, her hypocrisy is beyond belief!! :-D :-D :-D Her absolute dishonesty and pathological lying is driving her further and further away from the realm of men or reason and reasonable men. Therefore once more, Salero21 is Total stupidity all over, here there, anywhere everywhere, all the time anytime, every single time and forevermore.
Why is it that many Christians ignore science?
Why do some of them tell two different stories at the same time (even selling them) about science?
Why do they travel to other places and incite violence against other people?
Why do they promote the jailing of people or remain complacent about their fellow Christians who do the same?
Why does the Anglican Communion demote the one person who tried to quell the violence against people in Uganda?
Why are they not listening to people from the National Institutes of Health?
Why do they ignore biologists?
=== for instance =====================================
The following is from the article:
Homosexuality ultimately a result of gene regulation, researchers find (12/11/2012 – LiveScience)
[ The search for a "gay gene" may be off-target, new research finds. Another process called epigenetics that switches genes on and off may explain why homosexuality runs in families.
Epigenetics are heritable changes caused by factors other than DNA. Instead of traits getting passed down through the genes, epigenetic change happens because of the way genes are regulated, or turned on and off.
These genetic regulators may be the reason homosexuality persists in nature despite the fact that gay people are less likely to reproduce, suggests the new study published in the [Dec, 2012] journal The Quarterly Review of Biology.
"These things have evolved because they're good for the parents, but they sometimes, not [with] high frequency, but sometimes carry over" into offspring, study researcher William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told LiveScience. In a male fetus, Rice and his colleagues write, an epigenetic change that benefited the mother may lead to "feminization" of sexual preference — homo- or bisexuality. The same may be true for epigenetic changes passed down by dad to a female fetus. (The terms feminization and masculinization of sexual preference refer to sexual orientation only — not to physical or personality traits of the offspring.)
The findings add to past research suggesting gay men haven't died out, because female relatives of gay men tend to have more children on average than other females. The study researchers specifically found that two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.
Hormones, epigenetics and orientation
Rice and his colleagues focused on epi-marks, which are molecular changes that act like temporary "switches" to turn genes on and off. If a gene is a blueprint, the epi-mark is the construction foreman who makes sure the product gets built. An epi-mark also determines when, where and how much a gene is expressed, according to the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis.
These molecular switches are usually erased very early in the developmental process, but they can be passed down from generation to generation, too, Rice said.
Some epi-marks are particularly important during fetal development, when they promote normal physical development in the sexes despite natural variations in testosterone during pregnancy. Researchers know that fetal exposure to too much testosterone can masculinize the genitals, brain or behavior of a genetically female fetus. Likewise, too little testosterone can make a genetically male fetus more feminized.
But here's the catch: There's lots of overlap between the levels of testosterone male and female fetuses get exposed to. That means there must be another side to the story, Rice and his colleagues wrote.
That side appears to be epigenetics, Rice said.
"Early in development, we think these epi-marks are laid down so that girl fetuses will be relatively insensitive to testosterone and male fetuses will be relatively sensitive to testosterone," Rice said.
Thus, if an epi-mark that kept a mother from getting exposed to high testosterone in development gets passed on to her son — the opposite sex — it could desensitize him to testosterone, contributing to his sexual preference for men. Similarly, if a male-specific epi-mark from dad gets passed to a daughter, it could "masculinize" her sexual preference, making her more interested in women.
These findings could explain why twin studies show that homosexuality runs in families, but no "gay gene" can be found, Rice said. In identical twins, there's about a 20 percent chance that if one twin is gay, the other will be too. If genetic change were responsible for homosexuality, you'd expect a much higher match, Rice said. Epigenetics, however, can explain the heritability without the need for a specific genetic change.
The hypothesis could be tested by examining epigenetic marks in parents of kids with gay versus straight offspring, Rice said. There are, of course, concerns that this knowledge could be used by parents who want to avoid gay offspring, Rice said, but that concern already exists around certain hormonal conditions in utero, which are known to contribute to an increased chance of offspring being lesbians.
"That cat's already out of the bag," Rice said. He added that an understanding of the biological underpinnings of homosexuality could help emphasize that same-sex behavior is not "unnatural."
"In fact, it's a major part of the natural world," Rice said. Fourteen percent of Western gulls raise chicks in female-female pairs, he pointed out. And 8 percent of male sheep show zero interest in fertile ewes, but get sexually excited by other rams. ]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The American Psychological Association states "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people", and says most people's sexual orientation is determined at an early age. Research into how sexual orientation in males may be determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises concerns about genetic profiling and prenatal testing."
Professor Michael King states: "The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change. Scientific evidence on the origins of homosexuality is considered relevant to theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that sexual orientation is a choice."
The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:
"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."
Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science. –Thomas Jefferson
Your question : "Why is it that many Christians ignore science?"
Your answer: "Denial functions to protect the ego from things that the individual cannot cope with. While this may save us from anxiety or pain, denial also requires a substantial investment of energy. Because of this, other defenses are also used to keep these unacceptable feelings from consciousness."
Reason: People know they are going to die.
There is also existential crisis
To support your post about gay marriage
We our the products of our minds.
We "are" the products of our minds.
I laugh my butt off at you atheist you speak out against all religions yet you have become your very own religion.. your trying to help the closet atheist from sitting in church... OK one stop attcking just Christians atheist are to denounce all religion not just one and two no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and telling them to go to church, sign to budda or pray to Ala . So get over yourself if gays and atheist can go freely enjoying what ever you do then I as a Christian can do the same without being told I am not aloud to pray in public.. last time I checked it is America I can do what I want when I want so stop your winning..
What do gay folks have to do with this?
Or this topic?
Go back to English class.
Your essay fails on spelling and grammar.
As an atheist that sits in pews( and likely spends more time in churches than most believers), it is also obvious, you have no idea what you are talking about
dalahast/AE, enough with your childish ad hominems already. Back to the top we go. This time, try to respond to my post instead of making yet more personal attacks.
Your belief in the racist, bigoted, and murderous Christian god of the nasty Christian myths is not healthy. It is a dangerous set of delusions, and requires the abandonment of reason. You should ask yourself, to help cure you of your horrid delusions, why it is that even the majority of believers in the world believe in a different god than you do, with wildly different rules to follow, and why your supposedly omnipotent creature can't do a better job of marketing himself over those other beliefs.
You really make a silly bully. You are not intimidating or credible.
dalahast/AE, please cease your childish ad hominems, and try for a change to find the courage to reply without making personal attacks on me and others here.
You have no idea what you are talking about if you imagine I haven't questioned my beliefs or considered other viewpoints.
Hey! Can you demonstrate how to not make childish ad hominems? Or how to not make 1 post without personal attacks on others?
Can you – practice what you preach? Or are you just another example of hypocrisy in action?
Nice try at yet another deflection and dodge. Your desperation in defending your crazy delusion of your violent and vengeful god is very apparent.
Again, please stop the personal attacks, and try instead to respond to what you are being questioned about.
I see your deflection and dodge. And I counter with my own deflection and dodge.
Bring it kiddo! I ain't fraid of a guy like you! Come one, copy and paste something else!
:) You are funny. Are you a bot?
Again you persist with the personal attacks. Obviously, I am not a bot. Do try to find the courage to do better than such attacks. Your desperation is obvious.
You are joking, right?
Again, please cease the personal attacks, and try for a change to summon the courage to address what you have been challenged on. Your ongoing ad hominems merely reveal the weakness of your position.
dala, "... or allows (atheists) to force their opinions onto others."
I may be forcing my opinion on you in the sense that you don't want to hear it, but there's an easy solution to that.
You seem to miss the irony – by the same standard you are forcing your opinion on us and believers in general are forcing their opinions on society. Until believers stop doing that I suspect there will be resistance.
As you cannot provide any evidence for your position, I don't really see that you have a valid complaint.
I can complain about self described "rational and logical" people acting irrational and illogical.
Especially if they post under silly names like yours.
There is evidence for you.
As usual, AE/Dalahast persists in personal attacks. That is all he has left, since he cannot present any evidence that can be examined, to support of his crazy beliefs.
Firstly I never self described as "rational and logical" but I think the atheist position is. How am I acting irrationally and illogically (apart from trying to get a straight answer from you)?
How is it a silly name – there's as much evidence for Santa as there is for a god.
If that's what you call evidence, it's no wonder you don't get it.
You aren't providing evidence of anything but your insecurity with people who believe in God. Most people don't devote so much time with something they don't believe in. And ones that embrace science, practice science. Not philosophy.
"Especially if they post under silly names like yours."
Not to point out the obvious, (which, of course, I'm clearly going to do), but for someone who named himself after a Swedish carved wooden horse, calling anyone else out on their name is...silly.
I'm talking about someone who is an anti-theist and patrols religious blogs searching out Christians to challenge their beliefs. The names some choose are just petty insults. And extremely unoriginal.
I suppose. Of course the flip side of making your stance on a god plainly known to the viewing public, such as the Christian posting under names such as "Atheist Hunter" and "Atheism Is A Religion " deserve massive props for their originality.
I wasn't aware that this was a Christian only board. Probably confuses people because 'Christian' or 'religious' aren't in the name of the blog. Huh. Go know.
I didn't provide the evidence of Big Bang, evolution, geological record, etc, but I did use it as the basis of my position – you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary or of your god. There you go again – projecting your imaginings on me. I'm not insecure about people who believe in gods – if they would keep it to themselves I would have very little to say. The fact that many religious people want their belief to dominate and try to push their beliefs into society is why I resist religion.
Why do you think only you should be able to express your opinion and it is a little ironic that you are probably the most prolific poster on here – especially obvious now that you're only using one handle.
Big Bang, evolution, geological record, etc doesn't disprove God.
If you want to know God, don't use a man-made construct used to study the physical world.
And you don't have to use religion. So resist religion all you want. That is fine.
If you want to seek God, seek the spiritual.
If you are spiritually dead inside, there are things you can do. You might be blind to aspects of this world.
No but they do disprove the creation myth used as the credentials for gods – without those credentials what other evidence do you have?
When you provide evidence of a god, we can discuss the best way to know it.
I've never presented the creation myth as the credentials for God.
What if that creation myth was never meant to be taken literally? Even the ancient Hebrews understood the context and meaning of the analogies being made?
That is how I've been taught to approach the story. It is not meant to "prove" God. But for one who wants a deeper understanding about God and the nature of the relationship between Him and His creation, the origin story does a good job of explaining that.
dalahast/AE, your crazy creation story does a good job here of proving that your religion is complete nonsense, when read without the confirmation bias that you are asking for. It does not stand up to scrutiny without such confirmation bias, and there is no evidence that you can produce to support your absurd beliefs.
Bob you are sinking in your own delusions. God is not racist for if he was he would have not created them. 90% of people who murder are atheist or people with no belief God never killed anyone in fact Jesus brought people to life.. OK minus the flood... He might seem like a myth but he give hope and light when you feel lost in the dark and if anyone should have second thoughts it should be Christians we die for him get more flack then any other religion why because we found love that you and others can't understand? As far as other religions it has been scientifically proven that all religions are based off Christianity but most religion broke him into many gods because they could not fathom one person doing all he does.. and to end PS atheist are to denounce all religions so pick on others not just Christianity..
saber300, good on you for acknowledging that mass murder that the horrid Christian bible presents its god as having done. That is a great step forward for you in appreciating just how vengeful and murderous the awful god of the Christian horror tales is. A modern court could easily convict such a being for human rights abuses, and more.
Now, as to the Jesus story, you should now give that a more critical look. As yourself how it is that a purportedly omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?
saber300, good on you for acknowledging that mass murder by the murderous god that is presented in the tales of the horrid Christian bible. Well done, and thank you for stating that. That is a great step forward as you progress into leaving the nasty Christian delusions behind.
As to the Jesus story, you should give that a more critical examination. Ask yourself how that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla. And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?
He sacrificed for us sadly I think your to close mined to see the meaning. God might come off as cruel but if he wasn't kind we wouldn't be here. You can't just see the galaxy and really think a bang made it! It is a work of art made my an artist not a fart. And theory is just that an idea!!! May I ask what you believe in. Because to think of going around this awfully world with no hope or faith seem crazy. Here is a head scratcher why is it that the more they remove God from everything that crime and cruelty goes up. If there is no God why is there no more Balance in the world why can't science fix it why do more people lack of basic knowledge?? Why has our planets weather been in disorder?
saber300, perhaps you should revisit your use of the term "close mined". That's a new one :-). Seriously, though, it is inappropriate and ludicrous to claim as you are doing that a mass murderer who has purportedly acted on a scale of brutally killing most of the creatures on a planet is "loving".
As for the Jesus story, my question stands unanswered. Think carefully about the term "omnipotent"; a "sacrifice" for a being with the characteristics claimed for your supposed god is nonsensical. Furthermore, for a "god" with the characteristics that yours is claimed to have, such a requirement in order to do saving is unnecessary and absurd.
I've spoken to your misuse of the word "theory" in a post above.
Finally, the remainder of your comment is essentially the argument from ignorance fallacy, and can be dismissed as such.
Saber, if you want to know about "Superior Atheist" philosophy, talk to Bob.
If you want to know about science, find a scientist. I'm sure you know that.
Bob is going through a phase. You can read about it here.
(It was actually written by an atheist).
Dalahast/AE, again, please stop the personal attacks. It is clear that you have no valid case to present for your beliefs, and your desperation as exhibited in your ongoing attacks is very apparent. If that is the best that you can do, perhaps you should take a long rest.
What do Christian fundamentalists and many hostile atheists have in common?
a) Both read the Bible as if it were meant to be taken literally
b) Both quote selected passages to buttress their case.
c) Both have a very narrow and simple understanding (only all good/only all bad).
d) All the above.
that's easy. the answer = 'e' not much at all as the religious believe in magic and atheists believe in logic and evidence
but you get a D- for trying :(
It's like an atheist and a Christian at a magic show. The atheist and Christian watch as the magician makes his assistant disappear. The atheists does not refute that the assistant disappeared, they just assume it was done with slight of hand, props and a trap door. The atheist may not know exactly how the trick was pulled off but given enough time they would be able to investigate, study and determine how the trick was done and not once do they entertain the idea that it might have been actual magic. The Christian just says "Wow! That was real magic! I mean, theres no other explanation!"
The Christian looks at the universe and says "Wow! It's all magic! I mean, there is no other explanation!" while the atheist dilligently studies and investigates the evidence without coming to a conclusion until all the facts are in but never falls into the lazy trap of saying "Maybe it was magic!"
That's a very good analogy.
what do all christians have in common?
they believe in magic
they believe 'goddidit'
sure, fundies believe in more hocus pocus than their more modern leaning brethren, but both believe in magic silliness to some degree
What about the scientists who happen to believe in Jesus who demonstrate they don't just believe "goddit"? And practice a science you can only dream about?
Or don't believe in "magic"?
And you just say "evolutionddit"? Fair?
Evolution is a complicated theory built upon a wealth of information and research. Your theory literally is "god did it". If you think the two are so easy to compare, you REALLY don't need to be questioning someone else's grasp of science.
People who's theory is literally "god did it", have contributed more to science than you, though. They have more authority to speak on behalf of science than you.
You REALLY don't need to be questioning actual scientists who believe in God's grasp of science.
You could actually learn from some God believers. And learn they don't simply say "goddidit". That is internet atheist talk. Silly.
Nobody whose theory was "god did it" ever contributed anything to science. People with that theory would have never tried to figure out the real reason behind it.
Right. Christians don't just say "god did it" and leave it at that.
Some, like the scientists that have gone on to win Nobel Prizes, demonstrate that the notion of just believing "god did it" is silly.
Again AE/dalahast is trying one of his standard tricks, in trying to claim support in science for his delusion by trotting out the few scientists who still support it. One wonders how much more such people would have accomplished without their delusions. At least the doctrine and practice of AE/Dalahast's nasty religion has shifted enough that they are no longer torturing and threatening scientists who expose the Christian god fraud, or at least not as much as in years past.
Here you can see him starting into this tactic yet again. Soon he'll trudge out Francis Collins. However, such people are now anomalies in modern science, and it takes extreme confirmation bias to claim that religion has substantial support among scientists today. One more sign of AE's desperation to sustain his dwindling (and disgusting) religion.
I laugh.. evaluation is still scientifically unproven so there goes that theory.. and if we believe in magic we would be witches or warlocks another religion you must have been confused.. And if there was magic I wouldn't be broke.Lol.. why do atheist care what I believe in if you are built on logic then logically the government would fail science would fail. Why is it that science no matter how hard they try can't be figured out? They can't find a DNA link to prove evolution they can't map the last human DNA the one they say is mostly human good and evil or even the soul. So have facts you can't prove that God does not real they found the Noah's Ark and many other relics from the bible. So bring a stronger fact to try to shack me evaluation will not work..
saber300, you should first look up what a scientific theory is. You clearly have a misconception of what the term means. Note also that creationism is not even a theory. Pay close attention to that point.
In regard to evolution, the evidence for evolution is now overwhelming. This National Geographic article is a great presentation of that point http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/
Bob maybe I do. But they did find Noah's Ark that was only in the bible not history books. And as far as science one minute they are saying one thing then changing their minds. As for the article there is still no DNA evidence to support it so in theory Nothing is related... And why does it matter what or why we believe in God??? If you want to prove us so wrong do more then flap your mouth.. PS there are other religions to pick on.. Lol..
saber300, let's start you with the basics. What, in your own words, do you think the term "scientific theory" means.
Go ahead and research it if you like before you answer. I think that will help to clear away some of your misconceptions, and then you can make more progress into learning about evolution and other topics in science.
Dalahast, are you a creationist or an evolutionist, or somewhere in between? I can't tell from your posts.
I believe a sky fairy magically created the world. And atheists manufactured dinosaur bones to thwart that wonderful guy in the sky's plan.
Seriously, just ask one of the regular posters on here. They know all about me and the reasons why I believe. Fascinating and pioneering techniques are on display here; no psychology degree or understanding of the complexity of the world needed.
Just the notion that I believe "god did it" and bronze age knowledge is superior to any other knowledge ever conceived.
It is so.. enlightening. And progressive. I'm in awe.
I asked you.
It appears life has evolved. My understanding, as well as from what I've read about my church, is that God is the guiding force behind such phenomenons we learn about when we practice and study science to understand the natural world. The more science reveals, the more we learn about God.
Thank you for answering.
I think this debate has been going on since before the middle ages and probably will not be resolved within my life time.
It will not be resolved in your life time or anyone elses life time because it would require the magical sky fairy to show up and let all it's creations know that it made them giving empirical evidence of its existence.
If there is no God as we atheists posit, then said God will never show up and make itself known to humans. If there is a God as the religious claim, then there should be some empirical evidence of that God unless that God is intentionally hiding from its own creations which should make one wonder, "Why?" "What is the benefit of God not making us aware of its presence?"
It's all just semantics surrounding a mental state.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.