 |
|
|
|
|
October 9th, 2013
02:27 PM ET
Creationists taunt atheists in latest billboard warBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)– A new video billboard in New York's Times Square has a message from creationists, "To all of our atheist friends: Thank God you're wrong." The video advertisement at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan is one of several billboards going up this week in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, paid for by Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis is best known as the multimillion-dollar Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum outside Cincinnati. The museum presents the case for Young Earth creationism, following what it says is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, which says the Earth was created by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago. Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, said the idea for the advertisements came from an atheist billboard in Times Square at Christmas. During the holidays, the American Atheists put up a billboard with images of Santa Claus and Jesus that read: "Keep the Merry, dump the myth." “The Bible says to contend for the faith,” Ham said. “We thought we should come up with something that would make a statement in the culture, a bold statement, and direct them to our website. "We're not against them personally. We're not trying to attack them personally, but we do believe they're wrong," he said. "From an atheist's perspective, they believe when they die, they cease to exist. And we say 'no, you're not going to cease to exist; you're going to spend eternity with God or without God. And if you're an atheist, you're going to be spending it without God.' " Dave Silverman, president of the American Atheists, said he felt sad for creationists when he saw the billboards. "They refuse to look at the real world. They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said. "They might as well be saying, 'Thank Zeus you're wrong' or 'Thank Thor you're wrong.' " Silverman said he welcomed another competitor to marketplace, noting that after atheists bought a billboard two years ago in Times Square that read "You KNOW it's a myth," the Catholic League purchased competing space at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel for a sign that read "You KNOW it's true." "I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said. Ham says part of the goal of the campaign is to draw people to the website for Answers in Genesis, where he offers a lengthy post on his beliefs for the proof of God. Ham insists that this campaign is in keeping with their overall mission. "We're a biblical authority ministry. We're really on about the Bible and the Gospel. Now, we do have a specialty in the area of the creation account and Genesis because that's where we say God's word has come under attack." Ham said Answers in Genesis made the decision to split its marketing budget for the ministry between a regional campaign for the museum and this billboard campaign, rather than a national campaign. IRS filings for the ministry in recent years have shown a yearly operating budget of more than $25 million. Ham said the marketing budget is about 2% of that, about $500,000 a year. Though they are waiting for all the bills to come due for this campaign, he said he expected it to cost between $150,000 and $200,000. Silverman noted that his billboards were not video and cost approximately $25,000 last year. He said another campaign was in the works for this year. "They're throwing down the gauntlet, and we're picking it up," Silverman said, adding that his group would "slap them in the face" with it. Ham said that despite criticism from other Christians for being negative and the usual criticisms from secularists he received on his social media accounts, the advertisements have been a success. "We wanted people talking about them, and we wanted discussion about this. We wanted people thinking about God," Ham said. The Creation Museum and the theory of Young Earth creationism are widely reviled by the broader science community. In a YouTube video posted last year titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children," Bill Nye the Science Guy slammed creationism, imploring parents not to teach it to their children. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future," he said. "We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems." The museum responded with its own video. For the past 30 years, Gallup Inc. has been tracking American opinions about creationism. In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution. For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years. The Creation Museum said it recently welcomed its 2 millionth visitor since its opening in 2007. soundoff (8,748 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Next »
« Previous entrySenate chaplain: Shutdown is 'madness'
|
  About this blog
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.  |
|
|
|
" 46% of Americans believed in creationism," - and Americans wonder why the U.S. ranks so low in science testing.
Craetionist – ICR and the Discovery Insti-tue are pushing the 46% maybe ?
How whales made the dramatic evolutionary shift from land to the sea
Minke whale genome and aquatic adaptation in cetaceans
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.2835.html
So you do understand what the word "theory" means? Hey if you are happy that a speck of dust exploded and created everything then go with it. My daughter would like to go on a Unicorn hunt with you.
I know exactly what the word "theory" means, and it's a benefit to both evolution and the scientific community while also being a detriment to those who believe that they know what the word means but really don't.
Who the fvck is stupid enough to say that "a speck of dust exploded" and "created everything?" That would be ridiculous. Strawmen might be fun for afternoon, but ultimately, they're pointless.
Video gamers.
But at least you get to claim that you're part of the majority, right?
So funny how both sides sound similar. I am more of an atheist myself but I think it is silly to post billboards like this. As silly as it seems, people believe in these ancient myths.... a lot.... why bother? As long as you aren't doing bad things believe in what ever you want. I really don't care. If you need some religion to give you a "moral compass" then fine, what ever works for you. I personally think it is weak... native people of this earth (decimated by religion) did just fine without religion so if you think you need some church or mosk or book or what ever to keep you from killing your neighbor then so be it. Just don't go kill your neighbor because of it.
I agree. Like all myths modern religions will die a natural death all by themselves. There's no need for billboards to try and speed up the inevitable.
I completely agree! Atheists are essentially nihilists and the religious believe manmade fantasy. Both are baseless.
Atheists are nihilists!?
You really said that?
So if rejection of baseless manmade fantasy is baseless, what are your beliefs!?
I would like to start this comment by saying that I am in no way attacking you or trying to one up you. Everybody always thinks that what our goal in life is which is simply not the case. I am just posing a simple question. So please do not take it offensively when I ask this. You talk about a moral compass. If religion is fake and only corrupts what man does, then where exactly do you get a moral compass?
It is a good question Joseph and not offensive at all. We are ALL products of our society that can not be denied. I can not answer that question. I am sure some of my thinking has come from religious doctrine whether or not I know it or not. However I think the basics of human life and what humans generally want out of it have not change since we could form a thought in our minds (speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, sorry). Do we want someone to kill us? NO of course not. Do we want to have children and love them? Do we care what happens to our fellow human beings, have empathy etc... Most of us do of course. These things were not invented when someone came up with a religion, they go back much further. I am no scientist and don't consider myself that smart. I grew up in Hawaii, have many native American friends from various parts of the world. If there is a place where I got my moral compass it was from them and my parents. Like everyone else I have been living my life trying to figure things out in a society that I have no control over. I see injustice and justice, I see good and bad... There is only one thing I am convinced of. After 43 years on this earth and traveling all over it, people are essentially the same and desire the same things out of life. It doesn't really matter what society or religion or race. We are all connected and we should see that connection, respect it and nurture it... not only with each other but with nature and everything.
I will go ahead and let you know that I am a christian which you may have gathered already. I asked this question because this is what most nonreligious people fumble to answer when the bible provides a pretty clear answer. In Romans 7 verse 18 it says, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out."
So how do you explain the millions of kind acts by the non religious?
The question should be extremely easy for any critical thinking atheist to answer, and it should be very difficult for any Christian to answer. All Christians have much, much better morals than the god of the bible, as can be easily proved by any number of examples from real life and scriptures and hypotheticals that touch on similar subjects. The god of the bible rules by terrorism and changes his rules from one epoch/dispensation to the next; and is only "right" or "moral" in nasty situations because he is "mightiest," according to the faithful.
As with many mammalian species, humans evolved as social creatures with empathy and sympathy and a sense of well-being towards the social environment that affects each individual. Morality is easily derived from such a system, and most cultures throughout the centuries and across cultures and time periods agree on the basics of fairness and justice and such.
Hello Cpt Obvious,
If you truly believe that humans are, "more moral than the God of the bible" then you should have no problem citing specific examples from the bible.
Yep. All day long. Most humans would never consider killing every single person and animal on the planet (except for a miniscule portion) with a horrific death.
Would you like more examples? How many?
What I believe you are referring to is Noah's Arc and the Flood. Am I right? While this did happen it was only because God had given the people their entire lives to repent, yet even until the end they didn't believe or repent. But it is also a show of God's mercy, because he could have done it again, but he made a promise that he would never destroy the whole earth until the end.
Good observation urnotathinkerareu, I was wondering if someone would catch that. This is because yes people will do good things, but apart from the saving love of Christ we will all always fall back into sin.
Joseph, I am glad that your morals are so much better than the god of the bible. You would not slaughter a planet's worth of people and animals just because you thought they weren't learning a lesson fast enough. You are better than the god you worship.
(Of course you can rationalize away any of your god's evil acts. Any Christian can, but it always comes down to "might makes right, and our god's the mightiest," or "god's morals change in different dispensations and he is the only one allowed to have shifting morality." Pretty pathetic.)
Cpt. Obvious,
What's your definition of evil?
Paul,
Perhaps I am wrong, but I would wager that you and I think of "evil" in very different ways. I will do my best to explain what is "evil."\
An evil action is one that causes much known harm and/or pain and suffering with little or no known positive benefits, or the action that causes the most harm.
So religious people are only religious to keep themselves from killing or harming others? Religion's only purpose is to provide a moral compass? That's what your'e saying? I don't think you really understand religion.
Maybe all this money, effort and energy being expended arguing about whether god exists or not, could instead be put to good use, to do something about homelessness, child hunger, etc. Then we could all agree about something we can all believe in.
I can't agree more. It shouldn't matter what you believe. Atheists, Christians, and every other belief group should focus on helping improving the world rather than getting people all riled up over trivial arguments and hurtful statements. We need to act as one unified front against the suffering of peoples across the globe.
We will not survive as a species unless we out grow this pathetic need for a Santa for Grownups, an invisible Companion to love us, punish us, and tell us we really won't die. We invent these concepts then actually believe them, becoming willing to kill for thoughts in our little heads.
It is time to grow up, Humanity!
"We will not survive as a species unless we out grow this pathetic need for a Santa for Grownups..."
What are your reasons for thinking that? How did you come to that conclusion?
I can give you many reasons why God and Jesus are much more than just a "Santa for grownups."
I don't doubt it, but you would still have zero proof.
There is no conclusive proof for anything we can't see. If I may, how do you believe the world came into being? What theory do you subscribe to?
So where are the sources for the many scientists or studies that suggest religions may be geared better than science for humans? Religion is a lazy way to find some sort of answer that makes sense although closer scrutiny proves that religion does not really provide scientifically researched processes. Science is hard work.....the lazy way says..."we have ALL the answers we will ever need ( without evidence). They can NEVER change their mind because dogma is a non living dead end.. Science MEANS that we can change our minds but also that we NEED to change our minds in the face of evidence based facts. That which can be submitted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I am reading these comments and I have noticed something that I think people tend to overlook. And this is happening on both the pro-God side and the anti-God side. Athiests claim that Christians want to push their beliefs on everybody and that is why they are hated. But reading alot of these comments on here, I have to say that I am reading alot of comments by athiests that are just as bad. If you have a belief system that works for you, thats great. I for one, do believe that there is a God. I do believe that the world was created and did not came about due to the big bang theroy. But – get ready for it – I also believe that the world is billions of years old as well. There are parts of science that cannot be disputed. I guess what I am saying is to both sides of this arguement. If you don't like what the other side is doing, don't do the same thing. Conversation is good, debate is good. But when you get into the realm of bashing the other side because of what they believe, then you run the risk of having your whole side look bad. Anyway, that's the way I see anyway.
It really hard to get into a discussion without a real time debate so I'll leave a comment. From an atheist view religion is an obstruction to progress and always has been. And people need to hear this message over and over in various forms and from different life experiences, just like message of religion is published over and over while living off the profits and receiving state support in addition to the revenues of delivering the message of religion. Unfortunately every atheist has a negative experience with religion along with the evidence that contradicts the religious message, and they have their own in-fighting to deal with as well. It would be wise to take the progressive atheists a little more seriously; they have a powerful message to deliver and their motives are every bit as pure.
If you read what I wrote, you will see that I said debate is good. What I said the bad part was is when people start bashing and calling the opposing side idiots and everything else for what they believe. do I think athiests are wrong? Yes. Do I believe there is a God? Yes. Have I expierenced things that science cannot explain? yes. Many times. But the one thing that you will never hear or read from me is bashing people for what they believe. Yes, I will agree, there are christians that like to do that. They do nothing but scream about hellfire and how everyone but them are a bunch of Godless heathens that aren't worht anything. And I will be the first one to apologize for them. We are not all like that. And I have NEVER once side that I question the motives of the progressive athiests as you put it. I do believe their motives are pure. Just as mine are. I think you are wrong. You think I am wrong. The bottom line is, alot of crap I am reading on here can be done without. Lets just agree that both sides disagree with each other and respect people for what they believe without making them feel like a second class human. This should go for both sides.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m_a1f9RHYA&feature=player_detailpage
Will O'Really,
Christians don't even KNOW if God exists. No proof.
But in fact there is many different things that can almost proof the existence of God. While there is no absolute proof that He exists there is even less proof He doesn't. We all have to have faith, but most would agree that an atheist needs more faith than a christian.
Utter nonsense.
You will provide no proof of gods. I can be pretty certain of that, because everyone else who said the same thing failed miserably.
Go ahead; make my day.
Here's the referenced study:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10508619.2013.771991#.UpQpn-KB6u4
The results are interesting, but in light of the small sample sizes and the numerous potentially confounding variables, the conclusion of the youtube video is reaching to say the least. One particular issue that stands out are the different targets of the "God statements" and the "Offensive Statements" used as stimuli (see Table 1). In the former, the targets are personal, e.g. the participants themselves, family members, friends, etc. In the latter, the targets are more abstract and less personally-identifiable. One could draw the conclusion that atheists are more distressed than theists at the prospect of harm to their friends and families and that the inclusion of "God" was not a significant factor in their response. Similarly, one could conclude that theists are simply more comfortable with "God" inflicting grievous harm. This is certainly the case when contrasting theist justification for the slaughter of Amalekite children and infants (1 Sam 15:3) to the invariable atheist response of disgust regarding such abhorrent behaviors.
Scientific studies reveal that scientists cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose.
Even though advanced scientific training can reduce acceptance of scientifically inaccurate teleological explanations, it cannot erase a tenacious early-emerging human tendency to find purpose in nature. It seems that our minds may be naturally more geared to religion than science. No surprises with the study there!
The ti-tle says it all , evolution should not be up for debate !!
Bill Nye: Debate Over Evolution In Texas Schools Is Jeopardizing Our Future
Posted: 11/23/2013 5:01 pm EST | Updated: 11/23/2013 7:28 pm EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/23/evolution-in-texas-schools_n_4330218.html
It won't jeopardize our future at all. You don't need to believe in the molecules-to-man evolution fairy tale to be an engineer. Particles-to-people evolution doesn't fall into the category of observational science like engineering does.
Understanding how biology works at a fundamental level will change our lives in ways you can't imagine, Paul. It will give rise to many new kinds of engineering all of which will depend on concepts derived from evolutionary dynamics and molecular biology. I'm sorry that you want to stay in the age of steam. You are the only thing that's stopping you from coming along with us and getting some exciting things done.
Yes!
Well said!
Theists who tire of the merciless intellectual drubbings online have an option, and some of them eventually take it; they come around to reason. So it's worth the effort!
You're confusing OBSERVABLE evidence with your fairy tale ideas about what happened in the past.
I don't think I mentioned the past, Paul. But if biology progresses to the point that it is demonstrable that something extraordinary would have been necessary to prevent evolution from having unfolded as our fairy tales suggest it did, will you still prefer your fairy tales? Will you say that your God would never have allowed it?
The fossil record is observable. The geologic strata in which new fossils are discovered in relation to previously discovered fossils is observable. Speciation is observable. Phylogenetic analyses comparing extinct and extant forms is observable. Morphometric analyses of extinct and extant forms is observable. Etc, etc.
Again, a genetic paternity test's mechanisms and results are observable. The tests have been validated in double-blind studies which are observable. The conclusion of such tests have been validated in application. The validation is not contingent on someone having had directly observed, in real time, the act of conception. That creationists accept this application of science to the "historical" investigation of paternity, but reject out-of-hand the directly analogous application of phylogenetic analyses to extinct and extant forms among many other applications of "operational" science to events having previously transpired betrays the inconsistency of their "observation" demands.
Paul wrote: "You're confusing OBSERVABLE evidence with your fairy tale ideas about what happened in the past."
I take it Paul thinks our theories about who was president in 1860 are all just a bunch of flaky nonsense too.
"I take it Paul thinks our theories about who was president in 1860 are all just a bunch of flaky nonsense too."
Sara,
Its that how your science works? Just hunches and guesses?
One thing that atheists consistently do is take things out of context. Just like you did here, Sara. In context, I was talking about the origin of life. Particles-to-people evolution has never been observed.
@Paul – Abiogenesis aside, every relevant observation required to reasonably infer evolution has been observed, lest you try (which you no doubt do) to discredit the entire practice of science. Of course, this doesn't mean anything to you because you don't really comprehend the science and have no interest in comprehending. Your purpose here is solely to defend your a priori religious beliefs against the perceived threat of evolution.
I've stated before, I am willing to concede I am wrong about everything, i.e. that evolution is possibly false and that your preferred deity is possibly the one true God.
I ask you again, are you willing to make the same concession:
Is it possible that evolution is in fact true and that your preferred deity does not, in fact, actually exist?
Oops. That should have read "I'm willing to concede I could be wrong about everything . . ." (Clearly, I haven't actually conceded this, but I am willing to do so if the evidence arises).
This leads me to a follow-up just in case you are willing to make a similar concession: What evidence would you require before you would accept macroevolution, specifically with respect to humans, has occurred? Is there any evidence that could convince you a literal Genesis is incorrect?
For the record, I'd be willing to acknowledge as irreconcilable with evolution: a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian strata, dinosaur fossils found alongside human fossils, the observation of a true chimera, and of course, an observation of the special creation of an organism ex nihilo, etc . . .
@redzoa
"Abiogenesis aside, every relevant observation required to reasonably infer evolution has been observed,..."
I agree that you're making an inference. That was my point on several occations (maybe not to you, but to others) when I asked if they could tell the difference between observable evidence and the interpretation of the evidence. But again, this would depend on one's defintion of "evolution."
"...lest you try (which you no doubt do) to discredit the entire practice of science. "
Well, start doubting. I'm not trying to discredit science at all. My objections are with some of the interpretations of the evidence.
"Of course, this doesn't mean anything to you because you don't really comprehend the science and have no interest in comprehending. Your purpose here is solely to defend your a priori religious beliefs against the perceived threat of evolution."
I'm not sure how you came to those conclusions, but none of them are true.
When I was young I suggested to a scientist that creation of a living organism de novo might be one of the more important goals of science. He disagreed, saying that there was no reason to go after a goal like that. Now that I am older, and a scientist myself, I see the best reasons for doing it have more to do with engineering than science, but I still think it should be done for the original reason I gave – to show that life is not in any way supernatural. There is so much confusion on the subject of life that I think it is an obligation of science to answer the questions around it and do away with as much of the mystery of it as possible.
@Paul – As I've said before, you can retreat to the "same evidence, different interpretation" position, but your preferred interpretation is clearly lacking any concordance with the empirical physical evidence from the relevant scientific disciplines.
I came to the conclusion regarding your lack of familiarity with the science in that if had you any background, you likely would have addressed the points I made with respect to your AIG link (rather than insist I contact them directly).
I notice you didn't respond to the more weighty questions: Is there any evidence that would convince that macroevolution, i.e. humans and apes share a common ancestor, etc, is valid? Is it possible that the God you believe in doesn't actually exist?
Creationists claim that the consistency of physical laws is ever subject to the whim of their deity, and therefore, there is no reasonable basis to apply the validated mechanisms of present observational science to past events, because God may have temporarily modified the underlying physical laws. As such, creationists argue we can't apply the observational science relating to genetics, developmental biology, speciation and divergence, geology, radiometric decay, hydrodynamics, etc, etc, to investigations of the progressive ordering of the fossil record. Unfortunately for Paul's position, this claim of supernaturally mutable physical law must also extend to the future. There can be no reasonable basis for an engineer to design some widget, based on the present understanding of physics, because God can likewise change the underlying physical laws upon which the design is based at some unknowable time in the future, e.g. 5 yrs, 5 days, or 5 seconds from the present, God might change gravity, the speed of light, the resistance of electricity through some medium, etc, etc. In other words, if one accepts the notion that there can be no reasonable consistency of physical law because God may choose to change the physical laws, then there can be no reasonable application of any science, at any time (past, present, future), whether that "observational science" is paleontology, medicine, or engineering.
"evolution should not be up for debate !!"
I don't agree with this. If evolution becomes off-limits for debate, then it is no longer science. It is at that point, by definition, dogma.
HOWEVER, it should be a debate based on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (sorry for caps–wish we had italics for emphasis). It should NOT be a debate based on religion and politics, which is what we have now.
I agree with the general gist of your points, but we have to be careful about declaring things "off limits for debate".
They don't mean "literally" evolution is up for debate! It means the fact that evolution is true is not up for debate. It is a proven with evidence fact. Just how and when and why IS up for debate most definetley..As the hows of evolution are discovered.the debate will continue.
While I agree that evolution is by far and away the best theory for the facts, there are no "proofs" in science and all theories are potentially subject to change. But, as previously stated, new and very good data would be required to warrant adjusting the theory.
Dandintac
Ohio Supreme court upheld the firing of a creation science teacher for not teaching evolution , that teacher learned the facts of life the hard way.
Then what is holding up the the text books i9n Texas is not evolution per say( by the way the RCC teaches and supposedly understands
evolution ) but WHEN the earth cooled. Geology works !
Dandintac..... no gods required !
'Immune Gene' in Humans Inherited from Neanderthals, Study Suggests
Nov. 22, 2013 — A research group at Bonn University and international collaborators discovered a novel receptor, which allows the
immune system of modern humans to recognize dangerous invaders, and subsequently elicits an immune response. The blueprint for this advantageous structure was in addition identified in the genome of Neanderthals,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131122084405.htm
"Study Suggests"
That's actually a reification. The study itself didn't suggest anything. But PEOPLE analyzed the study and they are the ones that suggested it. Science doesn't say things, but scientists do. Like I've asked before, can you separate the scientific evidence from the interpretation of the evidence?
Scientists Find Brain Region That Helps You Make Up Your Mind
The lateral habenula is considered one of the oldest regions of the brain, evolution-wise, the researchers say.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131124200554.htm
Yes, science involves interpretation, even interpolation. It welcomes revision, though. Even regards it as essential.
Now, can you separate belief in your Bible from interpretation. Do you know what in it is true? Do you have evidence backing your beliefs at all?
There i no god, no devil, no heaven, no hell, no loved ones waiting...learn to cope with that thought..make the best of your time on earth now.....Youve been brainwashed into believing in a religion based on which part of the earth your were conceived.
Don't talk about yourself that way.
Opposing view,
Your comments are pure silliness.
Millions of years of evolution have made humans with a 'cooperative' gene. That is, it is in the best interest of survival for humans to cooperate (i.e. hunting, protection, living together, etc.). Therefore, the need for a 'god' to maintain peace and quiet is not a pre-requisite.
Any biological references for your theory??
One more piece of Evidence of the Total stupidity of atheism.
Where did they get the money for that?
The weak minded poor who the church prays on.
Keep giving to the collection plate simpletons.
"They refuse to look at the real world. They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said.
"They might as well be saying, 'Thank Zeus you're wrong' or 'Thank Thor you're wrong.' "
Has that "Zeus" or "Thor" ever done, or can they ever do
what YHWH GOD has thus Most Superbly and Powerfully done here now, Mr. Silverman!
http://www.holy-19-harvest.com
UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES
You're tearing me apart
It's beautiful, it's beautiful
Beautiful at the start
You're tearing me apart
It's beautiful, it's beautiful
Beautiful at the start
Without God or Religion, This World Would Tear Itself Apart...
For those atheists and unbelievers clamoring for a world without God or religion, trust me, you'll get your desire soon enough – when you arrive in hell, as there is no God or religion in hell. Nonetheless, the reality is, this world would tear itself apart without the presence of God, his influence, or a belief in God. Religion, whether good or bad, along with a belief in God and what he represents is what has provided a "moral compass" for this world, an incentive to do right rather than to do wrong. And if you remove that moral incentive, that reason for doing good rather than evil, then this entire world would tear itself apart in short order. And I mean that literally. The following are some examples...
Whether you like it or not, all of mankind's laws were derived from the foundation of laws which God himself laid down, laws like: Thou shall not kill; Thou shall not steal; Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor, etc. God himself laid down the foundation, and all other laws were derived from that. Our whole idea of what is right and what is wrong was derived from the very laws which God himself set. Imagine for a moment if God had never created a law that said, Thou shall not kill. Or never created one that said, Thou shall not steal. In such a case, if such laws never existed, then why would anyone work? Why not just drive your car to the local food store or clothing store, and go in at gunpoint and take whatever you wanted. I mean who could stop you, if there was no law against you stealing? And if someone did try to stop you, you could simply blow their brains out. Why? Because there was no law against you killing anyone either. So there'd be no fear of you going to jail. And consequently, when the spouse of that person you killed found out, they'd get angry, then pick up a gun and come looking for you. And once they found you, they'd blow your brains out as well. And the cycle would continue. This whole world would tear itself apart in short order...
Here's another example… What if there were no laws against you ra-ping some? You could see a woman walking down the street and simply take what you wanted. Simply rip her clothes off right there on the sidewalk and do whatever you wanted, and there'd be no one to stop you. Why? Because there'd be no law against you doing it. Without laws, this whole world would tear itself apart. It would not survive. So God did what was right by setting up such laws. But atheists in their conceit, don't want to give God the credit for it. They don't even want for God to exist. But yet they need the very laws God laid down. Because without his laws and without his influence upon the earth, then even those very atheists who don't want him to exist, would also cease to exist…
And before you atheists start replying back, I already know there are some who will say that without God, man would have created similar laws on his own. Hogwash. That is complete nonsense. Man would never have done it. Let's go back in time and imagine a time when no laws ever existed. And imagine there was a man or group of men tasked with creating the very first laws. In such a case and if no God existed, no power above those men to compel those men to create laws that was fair to everyone, then what would stop those men from simply making themselves supreme ruler of the earth? What would stop those men from saying that all women were their s-e-x slaves, and that they could take any woman they wanted on sight and that no woman could do anything about it? What man in this right mind would even create such a law that would send his soul to hell if he violated those laws? Why would any mortal man who had the power to do so, even create a law against fornication, adultery, sod-omy, ra-pe, or anything else? That is what his flesh likes and desires. So why create a law against it? He would never do it. Without the eternal God to enforce it, and to compel man to do right, then man would never have created such laws. And without such laws as a foundation, this whole world would never have survived until now. We only exist now because God laid down that foundation. We only exist now and have such laws because God is around to enforce it. And he enforces it against all men (even against Supreme Court judges and the highest of ranks) with the threat of hell and the lake. Without that threat and without God to enforce it, then this whole world would tear itself apart…
Opposing View,
"the reality is, this world would tear itself apart without the presence of God, his influence, or a belief in God."
Logic Test:
The ancient Greeks did not believe in God. So, were they famous for:
(a) being wild and uncivilized and killing each other
(b) brilliant mathematicians, scientists and thinkers who started public education
Oooops! Try again.
Just like an atheist. You know you can't argue with truth. So why try to twist the truth into a lie?…
Opposing View,
No answer to such a simple question that school kids could answer.
Are you COMPLETELY STUMPED?
I don't respond to nonsense...
Opposing View,
The only "nonsense" is that you are so AFRAID to answer the simple question. Didn't you go to school? If you need help, talk to a school kid.
The ancient Greeks did not believe in God. So, were they famous for:
(a) being wild and uncivilized and killing each other
(b) brilliant mathematicians, scientists and thinkers who started public education
Another mindless zealot with no intelligent argument. Just slinging insults. Ho-hum...
OV doesn't respond to nonsense, he SPEWS nonsense
The world would tear itself apart? How would it do that? What kind of universe-grade equipment would the world use and procure to be able to tear itself apart? Who would it call for such equipment? I mean, there are things a person can do to themselves given the proper tools – like say pluck an eyelash out. But a round earth with no arms or legs – really??
OV: "Religion, whether good or bad, along with a belief in God and what he represents is what has provided a "moral compass" for this world"
Only to some; the belief in your God only represents a moral compass to some, and turned many into hate-filled hypocrites.
OV: "Whether you like it or not, all of mankind's laws were derived from the foundation of laws which God himself laid down [blah blah blah]"
BS – pure conjecture regarding divinity of course, and there's no reason to believe the Abrahamic laws automatically somehow applied itself around the world.
OV: "Here's another example… What if there were no laws against . . . "
Just too silly. Whatever you said next isn't the case in most of the civilized world is it? More conjecture. Now if you want to give credit to Abrahamic law in that part of the world for helping to bring about some positive changes, then fine. But don't pretend that these ideas were owned and operated solely by Judeo-Christians.
OV: "And before you atheists start replying back, I already know there are some who will say that without God, man would have created similar laws on his own. Hogwash. That is complete nonsense. Man would never have done it."
Until you can prove that your God is real, it's only sensible to think man DID create laws on his own. Demonstrate your god, or demonstrate and absolute truth from your god without resorting to subjective means or consensus, otherwise guess what? – it is only sensible to think that consensus brought us to where we are today.
What color is the sky in that world you live in?
"The world would tear itself apart"–really? Kind of like Catholics vs Protestants in Northern Ireland? How about Sunni vs. Shia Muslims in Iraq? How about the Taliban in Afghanistan? Really holding the world together–aren't they? How about the Serbian Christians vs. the Bosnian Muslims? Muslims vs. Christians in the Ivory Coast? Muslims vs. Christians in Cyprus? Hindus and Sikhs vs Muslims in India? Christians vs Muslims in East Timor and Indonesia? Hindus vs Muslims in Kashmir? Christians vs Muslims in Sudan? In Kurdistan? Macedonia? Chechnya? Jews vs Muslims in Israel and the occupied territories? Muslims vs Muslims in Somalia? Christians vs Animists in South Africa? Buddhists vs Muslims in Thailand? Christians vs Muslims in Uganda?
And many of the conflicts involving Muslims–that doesn't mean the Muslims are the instigators. In Uganda for example, the perps are Christians whose goal is a Christian theocracy.
These are just the current conflicts–not even taking into account past horrors such as the Inquisition, witch burnings, crusades and Jihads. It also doesn't take into account individual horrors–people who die because of Christian Science. The retardation of whole societies. The suppression of scientific teachings, such as evolution, which threaten to hold back human progress. I could go on and on and on. Nothing tears human societies apart more readily and frequently than religious strife.
Dogmatic ideology is bad, but Religion is responsible for more human misery than any other.
Observer
Apparently, it's (b). Pythagoras for example?
Well done.
Here's a sidepoint…
When you look at the logic of the argument I made above, especially the part about how man would never have created certain kinds of laws himself – (such as laws against fornication or adultery, or laws that would send his soul to hell if he violated certain laws, etc. Man, left to his own will, would never have created laws like that. Only a God would have created those kinds of laws) – then the only logical conclusion as to why such laws even exist, is because an eternal God truly does exist as well, and because his existence (and the threat of hell and the lake) forces man (indeed all men) to abide by those laws. That is the only logical reason such laws even exist or has ever existed. Man, left to his own will, would never have created them. You can be assured of that. There is no argument you can make which could show that man would have created such laws on his own or for any reason. Man would never have done it, not without a God forcing him to do so…
So this is just one more straw on the straw pile that proves that God exists. Not that there isn't tons more evidence all around us. My main point is, if atheists were looking for logical reasons to believe in God, then there are plenty of logical reasons to be found. The only problem is, atheists are not looking for logical reasons, or for any reasons at all. In fact, they're looking for just the opposite. They're looking for more reasons to remain an atheist, and looking for more excuses to keep doing what they are doing. That is all they want, and they're not searching for truth at all. Because if they were truly searching for truth, then the truth is all around them – and always has been…
Opposing View,
"Man would never have done it, not without a God forcing him to do so"
lol. If your education had included history about ancient Greece, you'd see how WRONG you are.
Sadly, you must have missed those classes in school.
Please get a better education so your lack of knowledge won't embarass you so much.
Bingo.
It's pretty obvious OV has blinders on, though Observer. It probably wants you to prove ancient Greece existed; lol.
"Doris", "Dandinatac", "Observer"… Nothing you have said defeats the argument I made above. Thus, everything you have said is irrelevant...
Sorry, I left out your name. That applies to you as well, Observer...
If you could come up with an argument then there might be something to look at OV. So far you have failed miserably at making any valid point, much less a side point.
"Doris", "Observer"... Try reading it again. If you don't have the ability to comprehend the points of my argument, then don't even bother replying because I don't have time for your nonsense…
Comprehend? lol – whatever.
Opposing View,
Still STUMPED about this question on world history that most school children learned? Pathetic.
The ancient Greeks DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. So, were they famous for:
(a) being wild and uncivilized and killing each other
(b) brilliant mathematicians, scientists and thinkers who started public education
"Doris", "Dandinatac"… Nothing you have said defeats the arguments I've made above. Thus, everything you have said is irrelevant...
You can't seriously believe that of crap, can you?
You can't seriously believe that of cr-ap, can you?
Opposing View,
Your main assertion, that the world would tear itself apart with God or religion, is demonstrably wrong. There's no correlation between religiosity and moral behavior. In the United States, the most religious states have the highest levels of crime, poverty, and a number of other social ills. For comparisons by nation, consider Denmark and Sweden, where 90% or more of the population is atheist or non-relgious. These two countries have some of the highest levels of happiness, social order, and prosperity in the world, and very low levels of crime and other social problems. Religion is not necessary for a stable, moral society, and countries like Denmark and Sweden are leading the way to a happy, humanistic, post-religious world for those people and nations who have the courage and common sense to leave the iron age myths behind.
hile I agee with your basic point, only 20-30% of the people in those countries are actually strictly atheist which is what's relevant here.
Also, the OP's point, I think, is that, regardless of individual belief, god made the laws. This is still unfounded and ignorant of modern psychology, sociology and primate research, but it means that points about predominantly godless countries are off the mark.
I couldn't even make it more than a paragraph and a half. Is your knowledge of history really so limited that you believe there were no societies before the bible?
From a logical stand point wouldn't the earliest of humans discovered that killing and rapping was wrong? If you had to survive to pass on your traits and to keep living. Why would you weaken your chances by killing someone or inflict pain on a potential mate who could supply offspring for many years?
Atheist ,like myself, don't believe in ANY FORM OF GOD. Not just the Christian God. Most atheist don't need a being to tell them what to do. They choose to live life on purpose for themselves not on accident and services for some divine figure.
lol??
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
How square. It's only a sign of the Times. The atheists are schmart. They can read.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGaj4j_az98
Hey Paul
Evolution debate again engulfs Texas board
The last stand for creationists as they are down to when the earth cooled, was it 4.2 billion or 4 billion years ago when the earth cooled !
It is so sad and discouraging to read that such a high percentage of Americans don't believe in science. The ignorance is staggering. Of course evolution is a fact. When you consider the billions and billions of planets in known existence, and the mysteries of all that we do not know, there are still plenty of reasons to believe in a god. Just that a god did not wave a magic wand one day and create Adam and Eve etc etc.
"It is so sad and discouraging to read that such a high percentage of Americans don't believe in science."
It's so sad that when some people hear that others don't believe in molecules-to-man evolution, those people think that they don't believe in science. That's not the case. There's observational science, and then there are beliefs based on the scientific evidence. Molecules-to-man evolution is a fairy tale about what happened in the past based on the fact that we only see animals reproducing after their own kind in the present.
Fortunately, most people believe that all the laws of science are unchangeable, unlike those who read the Bible which says they are all optional.
"There's observational science, and then there are beliefs based on the scientific evidence."
Of course, with evolution, the "beliefs" have been validated by subsequent observational science, e.g. observation of particular fossils, defunct genes, etc, all in the correct order and place as predicted by evolution. On the contrary, the "beliefs" of ID/creationism are either directly contradicted by related observational science or are conveniently beyond the realm of science altogether. Again, feel free to explain the progressive order of the fossil record . . .
Mix a science type with a socie type and you get a viral bully.
lol??
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Yeah, after all the billions and billions of dollars the killer socies spent for their educational camps.
November 23, 2013 at 8:51 am | Report abuse | Reply
lol??
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I've seen a few. CampU, CampME, and CampUS are the most popular among the coed dorm room types.
"I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said.
Mr. Silverman, here is that Proof and Reason you are asking for!
http://www.holy-19-harvest.com
UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES
Theists claim that by their fruits they shall be known. We see the fruits of Islam. We know them. We don't need further evidence from Islam.
Question for the evolution deniers: What mechanism do you suggest prevents genetic mutations from adding up over time? I've been asking this question for years and not a single creationist has ever even attempted to answer it or reference any science whatsoever. What is so unrealistic about genetic mutations adding up? People say they agree with genetic mutations but not common descent when one directly causes the other. Speciation is proven. If a species can speciate into 2 separate populations that can no longer breed together, why can't that happen a whole bunch of times, giving rise to species that seem much different? There's no logical argument against evolution.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/mutations-engine-of-evolution
Typical of creationist sources, this one fails to adequately represent what we know. From the link: "Therefore, to be useful to an organism, a mutation that has a gain of new information must also cause a gain of new function. "
This is demonstrably false, evidenced in Lenski's E. coli. Here, neutral and perhaps even detrimental mutations persisted through multiple generations until latter mutations coalesced with the former to provide a novel biochemical pathway. The link also fails to adequately address gene and, less frequently, whole genome duplication events. Such events provide the sandbox for evolution to play in while providing the original and functional code. The link fails to address the role of gene dosing/compensation in diploid organisms where a potentially detrimental mutation from one parent's allele is offset by the other parent's allele (not to mention the mixing and matching of cross-over events). Furthermore, the link suggests that "extra" DNA would not be expected by evolution, however, evolution predicts, and we do see, significant proportions of genomes having little if any real function. In some experiments, large chunks of mouse DNA were deleted with no observable impacts. We see many, many defunct genes persisting in our genomes. My favorite example is our defunct gene for egg yolk protein. A curious superfluous addition in an organism "specially created" to be a placental mammal. I could go on, but I believe this is more than sufficient.
The truly curious part of the link is the recognition of severely limited genetic information on the ark and the catastrophic consequences of inbreeding in small populations, yet no discussion of how founding populations of 2 were capable of the hyper-evolution required to generate observable biodiversity in only 4000 years. Although you've suggested a "God of gaps" label was inappropriate, in the link, we can see precisely this type of appeal to ignorance:
"At this time, God seemed to withdraw some of His sustaining power to no longer completely uphold everything in a perfect state."
In other words, creationists have no reasonable mechanistic explanations and therefore, to account for the observable evidence, we'll just argue that "God did it" that way.
I suggest you copy and paste what you wrote in an e-mail to Answers in Genesis. I'm sure they'd be happy to respond.
First off, it's clear that AIG doesn't really care about the science, because if they did, the link you posted would have at least attempted to address the points I raised. Second, it was you who posted the link, but as it's clear you don't understand the basic science, here's a suggestion for you: Perhaps you should make a minimal investment in trying to understand the relevant science before offering these AIG misrepresentations. It would save you the time of linking to such nonsense, and it would save me the time of correcting the misrepresentations.
"First off, it's clear that AIG doesn't really care about the science,..."
Try telling that to the scientists at AiG
"...because if they did, the link you posted would have at least attempted to address the points I raised."
Were they supposed to read your mind? Again, try sending your "rebuttal" to them.
The points I raised are well known within the discipline. Again, what I read is your concession that you don't have the foggiest clue regarding the science, and that when the link you provided is shown to be riddled with misrepresentations, you attempt to excuse yourself from any need to respond. What I also read is that you have zero interest in even trying to understand the science which you continually attempt to discredit. Your continued invitation that I directly correspond with AIG only serves to confirm these points (for the record, I have directly corresponded with AIG and ICR scientists and when I say they have no interest in the actual science, this statement comes from my personal experience and the experiences of many other scientists who have addressed their pseudo-scientific apologetics). If it makes you feel better, when AIG posts, I will address them directly. Until then, I'll direct my responses on this blog to those who actually make them.
In today's scientific age, arguing against evolution is as ridiculous as arguing that the earth is flat. It's a total disregard for the knowledge and scientific progress we've made as a civilization. If you prefer to keep your head buried in the sand while ignoring those that dedicate their lives to finding out how things work over an emotional connect to an old story book, than that's your prerogative, just don't be upset when people laugh at you or have the nerve to tell other folks they are wrong, when neither you nor I has the absolute answer to everything.
I have a favorite cousin that is an RN and found out she was also a creationist, and insisted the earth was 6,000 years old. I think my jaw dropped a bit, and I was completely at a loss of what to say. I can't imagine how anyone can hold such contradictory views of reality at the same time. I just changed the subject and brought up some embarrassing childhood story about myself. The subject hasn't (and won't) come up again.
I'll never forget the first time I heard about "young earth creationism". A good friend of mine went crazy and turned born again Christian. I went over to his place one day and he puts on a Kent Hovind video, and I just sat there laughing while my friend acted like I was the insane one for not blindly going along with it. From that moment on, I made it a point to learn as much about evolution as I could.
I just wonder when she jams a needle in some kid's arm, what she really believes about the drug/vaccine she is injecting. How do they keep their heads from exploding? Fine, hold those kind of beliefs when you don't have a job that is in direct contradiction to your beliefs and peoples' lives are on the line.
@My Dog is a jealous Dog
She understands operational science just fine. She just doesn't buy into the fairy tale of molecules-to-man evolution.
Of course, the distinction between "operational" and "historical" science as used by creationists betrays the miscomprehension that both are based on methodological naturalism, both are based on direct observation of evidence, both are validated via successful future predictions and applications, and both are subject to falsifiability. Again, to determine the parent of a 20 year old child is by creationist lexicology, a "historical" scientific investigation. They suggest any attempt to do so must be inherently inferior to the "operational" science of the genetic paternity test. They argue the result of the paternity test is unreliable because the geneticist wasn't there to witness the conceptive act.
@Paul
Better to believe the fairy tale that some magical being just *poofed* everything into existence, eh?
The subject won't come up again!?
That's too bad. You should always get into it with people who believe utter nonsense. Especially people you like.
Why miss the opportunity? No wonder reasonable people are in the minority, since so many are afraid to speak up!
I've been an atheist for over 40 years and somewhat conditioned to be non-confrontational about it – especially with family.
I've been an atheist for longer than that, and resisted any conditioning that would make me stay quiet about who I am and what I think while others freely express their views.
Like it or not, a good part of the reason atheists are misunderstood and mistrusted is their own fear of speaking up.
I always got into it with my family, and enjoyed it. This concern that someone will be devastated beyond all hope is way overblown; they may act that way to begin with, but they get over it, & some even reconsider their own views.
The benefits are enormous; by speaking up, you get respect, if grudging, you may change minds, and you make it easier for others to speak up.
That's how change happens!
Creationists/ID believers to you like the new species of dinosaur below ?
Chomp Chomp.
Colossal New Predatory Dino Terrorized Early Tyrannosaurs
Nov. 22, 2013 — A new species of carnivorous dinosaur – one of the three largest ever discovered in North America – lived alongside and competed with small-bodied tyrannosaurs 98 million years ago. This newly discovered species, Siats meekerorum,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131122084241.htm
God's creatures are certainly amazing.
Tell me, Science Works, can you read that article and tell the difference from scienctific fact and the interpretation of the scientific evidence?
Here's a scientific fact for you. The major vertebrate groups appear in the fossil record in this order: first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds. Evolution explains this observation based on common descent, which is in turn based on phylogenetic analysis of extinct and extant organisms, comparative anatomy (e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve), our understanding of speciation, our understanding of geologic processes, etc, etc.
Feel free to provide the creationist explanation for this fact. However, before you scuffle off to AIG, ICR or the like, I'll let you know that "hydrodynamic sorting," "differential escape," "eco-zonation," "floating biomes" and all of the other explanations the best creationist minds have produced fail to even remotely account for the facts as observed. In a nutshell, the observable biogeographic and geological distributions of similar-sized and similar-niched organisms undermines each and every one of the creationist models. For example, consider plesiosaurs and dolphins, pterosaurs and golden eagles, etc, etc.
Yes, there is a difference between the observation of a fact and the interpretation or inferences drawn from a given fact in relation to others. However, some interpretations/inferences are demonstrably inferior in light of their inability to even remotely provide a concordant incorporation of the full body of facts. This is why creationists are reduced to feeble attempts at discrediting not just the foundational scientific theory of biology, but must also attempt to discredit similar foundational understanding of all of the other relevant sciences, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc. The creationist argument is, in reality, a vast hodgepodge of negative arguments which effectively target the entire modern scientific enterprise.
Paul
Ask live4him it loves to post about dino soft tissue .