Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the present trend continues for another 37 years in the same direction and at the same rate traveled for the past 37 years, the Christian faith as it is professed today by Christians will have disappeared from the face of the earth. In what form or by what instrumentality the mission of Jesus Christ will thereupon and thereafter continue to make itself manifest here on earth is as unpredictable as it is inevitable. --Benjamin H. Freedman
It is not my intention in this letter to expose the conspirators who are dedicating themselves to the destruction of the Christian faith nor to the nature and extent of the conspiracy itself. That exposure would fill many volumes. The history of the world for the past several centuries and current events at home and abroad confirm the existence of such a conspiracy. The Christian clergy appear to be more ignorant or more indifferent about this conspiracy than other Christians. The Christian clergy may be shocked to learn that they have been aiding and abetting the dedicated enemies of the Christian faith. --Freedman
Benjamin Freedman, as mentioned earlier, was an Ashkenazic Jew who was highly placed in the American government in the early to middle part of the twentieth century and had rather free access to presidents and statesmen up to the Kennedy Administration.
The future of American Christianity? The future of Western Christianity? The future of world, Christianity and indeed global religion? We shall have to see. But so far, the signs are encouraging, and Gldnrules denialism is a fart in the wind.
What if scientific study and data indicates that planet earth has an end?
So, even if Atheism takes over in the future as the most popular one, it will ALSO have an end - which will then prove the popular religious believe to be true about the enivtable doomsday.
It would depend when. It is supposed that the eath will end someday, the sun will die one day and the universe will end someday. So far in the future, that it isn't worth worrying about. What counts is what life we have in the meantime.
If we can make a good fist of it, it could be a very long time.
C.S Lewis in the first of his Perelandra series has the debate between Martians and an atheist professor who argues that man - what man begets - will expand to other planets if the earth dies.
"And when all (other stars and planets) are dead?"
I don't recall the answer but the right one is that stars and planets are being created all the time. They are probably not going to ever Run Out. But even if they do, and even if we never reach any of them, if the earth and human race ends, then it ends, just as we die.
Playing on the fears of the end of humans, the planet or the sun, can be effective. But grasping acceptance of whatever, while resolving to make the most of what time we have, is the effective answer.
And either way, it proves nothing about religious doomesday scenarios.
Galileo told the Christian church that planets existed outside of Earth and that those planets weren't orbiting Earth; the Christian church sentenced him to death for it.
Galileo was a diehard Catholic and he argued against the prevailing scientific paradigm of his time, and he therefore told scientists, as well as the Pope and Bishops, that the geocentric model was wrong. He argued for a heliocentric model in which earth and the other planets of its solar system orbited the sun.
Galileo was wrong in his view that the sun was the center of universe. Well... he was no more wrong about that than the once prevailing view the earth was the center of the universe. And in a certain sense the Church was not wrong about the earth being the center of the universe. You can pick any spot as the center and earth is as fine a spot to pick as any other. And so, when modern day scientists and engineers build satellites and launch them into outer-space they program them with geocentric coordinations.
The Church and Popes believe in the geocentric paradigm not unlike the current Pope believes in the prevailing climate change paradigm.
Science itself is generally "conservative" like religion and like military cultures with their military doctrines. None readily change and in fact historically all of them resist change to their dominate doctrines.
Quote:
Charles Darwin showed that animal species' descended from more ancient species' and was met with little criticism, but when he merely suggested that the human species descended from more ancient species', the entire Western religious world called for his death. There has really been no collision between human opinion and objective fact which has not ended in some religious believer getting violent over it. The human ego simply isn't capable of denying its own omniscience. If you don't believe me, study history.
Darwin had good observations, he was not the only person to have had those observations but he was the first to articulate them well.
His arguments were rational based on the paradigm construct he came to believe in. But descent with modification, in terms of explaining how different species arise, is not an established fact, most especially for modern human origins. By "modern" I'm speaking of Homo sapien sapiens.
It may be a fact or it may not be a fact. We do not know as it is not an established fact. What it is a rational explanation and seems supported by evidence, chief among them the fossil records.
You probably get as angry about people claiming macro evolution is false as the people during the 1500s got angry at people that claimed the prevailing geocentric mathematical explanation was wrong. (The math elegantly constructing the geocentric model was as I understand it, accurate or good math, but far more complicated than the math of the heliocentric model.)
Quote:
Human society has a way of weeding out bad ideas, and I'm glad to see that fundamentalist religious belief and low-information voting are on their way out in the U.S.
By bad ideas you mean like what... the rise of Adolf Hitler in the absence of a Catholic Inquisition in Germany at the time, which had it been present would have tried him, found him guilty of heresy, and been ordered deposed by the Pope thereby saving Europe from a costly, destructive, and bloody war, saving 6 million Jews that would have died in the Holocaust? That's the bad ideas you are talking about?
Or are you talking about the bad idea of coordinating the violent overthrow of Gaddafi in Libyia so the country would descend into chaos, and rival Islamic theocratic terrorist outfits would carve up sections of the country to control. That's the bad ideas you are speaking about?
Quote:
In the most religious areas of the country, the divorce rate is 50% higher than in the least religious areas. Violent crime is higher. Teen pregnancy is higher. Marital infidelity is higher. Crimes against property are higher. Infant mortality is higher. Porn viewership is higher. Obesity is higher. Dependence on government programs is higher. Average SAT scores, however, are lower. In almost every measurable sense, fundamentalist religion coincides with the breakdown of society. This trend extends to most places outside of the U.S., and to most points in human history. That's how far civilization can sink without penetrating the religion delusion. That's how much the religious are willing to sacrifice for the sake of maintaining their being "right." Needless to say, slitting your throat (or kicking you out of their house?), will be no small stretch for individuals willing to subject themselves and their loved ones to a third-world quality of life, in the name of religion.
Moderator cut: This paragraph belongs in the Politics forum.
But, of course, I'm the evil, monstrous agent of Satan for mentioning it. When I peacefully erect my Baphomet statue on public grounds, where Christian nativity scenes have stood unquestioned for decades, YOU, religious zealot, are the victim. You're being persecuted, and I am the one who needs to "shut up." In your righteous might, you set fire to my statue and spray paint Christian hate speech on the sidewalk in front of it. Read the news and find out if I'm making this up.
The disconnect. The violent, furious entitlement. The paranoia. The narcissism. They're all brought to bare on anyone who introduces rational scrutiny to religious zealotry, no matter how gentle they are about it. It says everything you need to know about the religious.
You put up a statue of who?
Do you mail holiday greeting cards emblazoned with swastikas on them to Jewish people, too?
Yeah, when you intentionally set out to offend Muslims in a predominately Muslim country, even if you are Christian then it won't be surprising if people don't vote you neighbor of the year.
Likewise, when you intentionally set out to erecting a statue you know is going to offend the sensibilities of large numbers of Christians in your country, especially with a figure depicted as evil, then you are no innocent.
That's all aside from the spiritual character traits of a man or woman that has some diabolical image like that in their home. Mother Teresa you are not.
That's a pretty good post, but I'd just observe that it appears to be considering the 'how do we know what we know' question. In the context of thee topic, that's relevant if the argument is that science is always changing its' mind, and, although (due to science adding to a consensus paradigm of the Bible being wrong) doubt about the religious claim seems to be increasing, but it could all change and the Bible -claims validated after all.
But I wouldn't bet a single copper on it, for the same reason I wouldn't bet a copper on the earth being flat or the centre of the solar system (1) Because the facts have piled up and been confirmed so much that there is no way back. What ever reservations one might have about "Macro" or human evolution, or questions about the origins of life or consciousness, the Genesis scenario has been put to bed. I am sure of this since out old pal Eusebius put up the best defence anyone could, and in the end he lost all ground other than 'prove abiogenesis' and sheer denial over the I/D aspects of DNA.
But that isn't really what the debate is about. I say Bible -claims, because my post is the answer to 'What would convince you..?"
Well, as I responded to Cardinals, the might be some doubts and questions about a godlike being appearing, (and why shouldn't there be? Why is it do darned important that we should give up all doubt and question?) it would be a good start to convincing evidence, so far as it goes.
But that could be any sorta god. Even if it said it was the god of the Bible, I see no way it could be the god IN the Bible. Because even if Jehovah appeared and swore the earth was flat, he would not be right, and even if he swore that everything in the Bible was correct, I would know he was mistaken or lying (and therefore not God, ipso facto). Because there is stuff in there that is impossibly wrong.
This is why I say the debate is over. It was won by the doubters long ago, and all that remains is to get this fact over to a public who have been told that religion won the argument. Or it doesn't matter if they didn't - they are still right if you dismiss the evidence and rely on Faith that the religious claims are right.
That is effectively what is going on when the argument is made that science could be proved wrong on religion. It is either ignorance or denial of the fact that the religious case - Bible claims - have lost too much ground for it ever to win the factual debate. They can only win by shutting up the opposition. Which is what the debate is actually about, now.
(1) and of course making oneself the centre of the universe by measuring everything from where you are is a nice party trick, but no more than that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-03-2017 at 05:49 AM..
Reason: gimme an "o"..gimme an "f" ..gimme an apostophe...
Almost all debates concerning religion are biased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bippy123
because of your bias towards your religion of unbelief .
I can't even begin to express just how monumentally disingenuous this assertion is -- that if science and atheism can be equated to just another religion, we can then begin to ascribe the same flaws and irrationality to science and non-belief as can so easily be attributed to religious belief.
Except it just doesn't work that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bippy123
In fact science itself has turned into a firm of religion .
If only I had a nickel for every time I've heard this doozy of a canard.
I do find it awfully strange how adamant some people are in trying to pull science down to the level of a religion -- given that doing so is a tacit admission that religion is fundamentally flawed, often irrational, rarely ever based on anything factual or evidential, and causes people to behave in often bizarre ways they wouldn't ordinarly if religion were not involved.
If one is going to attack science and atheism by comparing it to a religion, what, then, does that say about religion and deity worship? Your argument casts a much larger aspersion upon religion than it does on science -- especially since no one has yet to make a convincing comparison between religion and science that does more than show extremely superficial similarities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bippy123
Though it's been debunked now if you search google you will see pages devoted to this as if it's still real science but you'll have to dig for the refutations and most from real scientists .
Just because no one bothered to take down a website doesn't mean oodles upon oodles of scientists and atheists are still flocking to and subscribing to a debunked hypothesis.
There are millions, if not billions, of dead websites and pages out there that haven't been touched or updated in years.
By the way, I've enver heard of this guy. Ever. Or his hypothesis. How odd, huh? I mean, I'm not suggesting that I'm the best measuring stick to gauge what is popular and what isn't -- but if Ramachandran is such a "god" (as you assert) to atheists and the scientific community, one would have thought that I would have at least HEARD of this person by now.
I haven't ... and I do try to keep abreast of what's happening in the world. Being disabled, I have endless hours of reading time on my hands -- and endless hours of web surfing. Strange that I've never stumbled across any of these websites even accidentally.
Which isn't to say that they don't exist, of course. I'm sure they do. What I'm saying is that you're overplaying your hand. Ramachandran isn't anywhere NEAR as popular with atheists and scientists as you're letting on; no doubt that his followers represent a tiny fraction of atheists. The rest have either a) never heard of him or b) moved on once the hypothesis was debunked.
So ... to claim he is a god among atheists, well ... that would be like calling myself a Christian yet never having heard of Jesus Christ. I guess Ramachandran isn't the atheist's deity you thought he was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bippy123
They hailed him as a god at the atheistic beyond belief convention
Hyperbole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bippy123
and of course vilified and pounded Stuart hameroff for his secular explanation for the soul and afterlife because it dared to take science to a more spiritual realm out of the divine methodological naturalism paradigm that is held holy.
Oh, is that the reason? Or is it because Hameroff's explanation required too much supernaturalism to be believed by the majority of atheists?
I find it almost funny how people act so surprised when atheists don't immediately open up to paranormal ideas the moment a god or religion is removed from the equation.
I'm beginning to wonder if a goodly number of non-atheists actually believe that the *only* reason we don't believe in god is because of the religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bippy123
Religion science and Atheism have made errors in this way but at least the Catholic Church admitted to this but atheists still to today are in love with ramachandran .
Oh, gimme a break.
It took the Catholic Church 500 years ... literally 500 years! ... to formally admit that Galileo had been correct all along about a heliocentric solar system. So let's not even go there about how the Church "admits" to its mistakes. If atheists are still "in love" with Ramachandran 500 years from now, then we'll talk.
At any rate, it's bad enough to overplay one's hand once. To continue to do it all throughout your post, well, i'll just say "tsk, tsk, tsk" for the time being.
Like I said, I've never heard of Ramachandran. Not even a whisper about this guy. I'm not seeing any of the major YouTube atheists gushing on about him. I'm not hearing his name popping up all the time (if ever) on the Atheist Experience. None of the atheists on this board have cited him or his theories as part of an argument (to the best of my knowledge) ...
If his explanations and hypotheses and whatnot have been successfully debunked -- I'm only taking your word that they even have been -- the vast, vast majority of atheists will move on, leaving whatever cult of personality Ramachandran manages to built up around himself.
But to suggest, imply, intimate, or connotate that Ramachandran is this massive atheist religious movement with him as the high priest -- or even the deity -- is patently absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bippy123
Yet atheists still regard this guy as their God .
Wow, we do? Really?
Uhm ... *looks around* ... yeah, I was pretty certain there were no altars to Ramachandran anywhere in my house. There still aren't any. There never will be any.
And I'd bet everything I currently and ever will own right down to my last bobby pin that Ramachandran will never be anyone's "god" ... much less the god of any atheists.
What gets me though, is the ridiculous oxymoron.
"Yet atheists still regard this guy as their God."
Yeah, that sentence is an oxymoron. Why? Because the very SECOND a person begins to see any person, thing, or idea as an actual God, that person, BY DEFINITION, is no longer an atheist.
Duh.
So let's stop with the "God of atheists" rubbish, please? I beseech thee!
In other words, even IF those people -- whoever they are -- see Ramachandran as their "God," they aren't atheists and can no longer be used as an example of what atheists believe. They've converted to Ramachandaranism or some other nonsense, but they aren't atheists. Ergo, you need to stop calling them atheists. Or ... stop claiming that they worship Ramachandaran. It has to be one of the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bippy123
Your post is extremely bias and also does
T mention the advancement in science by the Catholic Church like the Big Bang which came from a Jesuit priest .
So? His priesthood was incidental. No one said one has to be an atheist to advance the cause of science. But that wasn't the Catholic Church advancing science -- that was the mind and the work of a singular man (and his staff, I'm sure). In fact, Lemaitre got annoyed with the Pope when the Supreme Pontiff tried to claim that Lemaitre's work provided proof that Catholicism was true; Lemaitre quickly pointed out that his work was neutral and didn't provide any evidence for or against Catholicism.
And ... what's even more important ... is that you're talking about scientific advancement in the 20th Century. Sure, by THEN the Church had finally gotten with the program, so to speak, but for a large part of its history, religion in general -- including the Church -- was like the proverbial albatross around the neck of scientific discovery.
Yeah, I know we can point to various exceptions here and there. Not even religion is perfectly imperfect. It's not that science couldn't progress -- even though it progressed more slowly than a lazy turtle with three broken legs crawling up the face of a mountain. Everything had to align with the supernatural teachings of the Church and any fact that got in the way of fiction was squashed, it's discoverer slapped with a gag order under penalty of imprisonment, exile, and in some cases torture and execution. Of course, excommunication was almost a certainty -- as if the Church determines who goes to Heaven and God merely validates the Church's decision once the departed soul arrives at the so-called Pearly Gates.
Of course, the fundamentalistic and evangelistic aspects of religion are *still* in the habit of promoting and advocating censorship of anything that contradicts their religious ideology -- they don't want you to see anything you're "not supposed to see" whether you believe or not.
The Chruch of today is not the same Church it was for much of its history, namely because it has lost the majority of its influence over the world's various governments. Now, it, as well as other churches, must settle for invading Third World nations, giving them food while teaching a disease-riddled population that protected sex is bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bippy123
Bit of course nothing brings out the anti science fundamentalist beliefs of the religion of atheism like near death experience research.
And nothing brings out ridiculous, absurd, and hyperbolic statements like the one above than when an atheist dares to challenge NDE research.
Wow, it's almost as if we're living in the time of Galileo all over again. I'm certain many posters here would be under *ahem* house arrest even now merely for disagreeing with the research; whether the opinion has any merit or not isn't even the point. Just the temerity that anyone would dare disagree! After all, lots of hard work went into that confirmation bias.
Show me someone who's been dead for a couple of days who comes back and tells me all about their adventures in Heaven and then I'll be more open to it.
Right now, though ... being "dead" for a few hours isn't a long enough time for *any* evidence to be conclusive, especially if that "death" occurs under controlled, clinical conditions.
Just because our current machines do not detect any brain activity doesn't mean there isn't any. It could be such a miniscule amount that it is virtually undetectable with current technology but still enough to paint those experiences onto someone's fading internal awareness.
OBEs are a different matter, however, and are far more interesting.
However, arguing from the standpoint that atheism is an "anti-science fundamentalist religion" only makes you look hysterical (and I don't mean the comedic defintion, either).
It's forum debate basics -- never overplay your hand.
What if scientific study and data indicates that planet earth has an end?
So, even if Atheism takes over in the future as the most popular one, it will ALSO have an end - which will then prove the popular religious believe to be true about the enivtable doomsday.
Almost all debates concerning religion are biased.
I can't even begin to express just how monumentally disingenuous this assertion is -- that if science and atheism can be equated to just another religion, we can then begin to ascribe the same flaws and irrationality to science and non-belief as can so easily be attributed to religious belief.
Except it just doesn't work that way.
If only I had a nickel for every time I've heard this doozy of a canard.
I do find it awfully strange how adamant some people are in trying to pull science down to the level of a religion -- given that doing so is a tacit admission that religion is fundamentally flawed, often irrational, rarely ever based on anything factual or evidential, and causes people to behave in often bizarre ways they wouldn't ordinarly if religion were not involved.
If one is going to attack science and atheism by comparing it to a religion, what, then, does that say about religion and deity worship? Your argument casts a much larger aspersion upon religion than it does on science -- especially since no one has yet to make a convincing comparison between religion and science that does more than show extremely superficial similarities.
Just because no one bothered to take down a website doesn't mean oodles upon oodles of scientists and atheists are still flocking to and subscribing to a debunked hypothesis.
There are millions, if not billions, of dead websites and pages out there that haven't been touched or updated in years.
By the way, I've enver heard of this guy. Ever. Or his hypothesis. How odd, huh? I mean, I'm not suggesting that I'm the best measuring stick to gauge what is popular and what isn't -- but if Ramachandran is such a "god" (as you assert) to atheists and the scientific community, one would have thought that I would have at least HEARD of this person by now.
I haven't ... and I do try to keep abreast of what's happening in the world. Being disabled, I have endless hours of reading time on my hands -- and endless hours of web surfing. Strange that I've never stumbled across any of these websites even accidentally.
Which isn't to say that they don't exist, of course. I'm sure they do. What I'm saying is that you're overplaying your hand. Ramachandran isn't anywhere NEAR as popular with atheists and scientists as you're letting on; no doubt that his followers represent a tiny fraction of atheists. The rest have either a) never heard of him or b) moved on once the hypothesis was debunked.
So ... to claim he is a god among atheists, well ... that would be like calling myself a Christian yet never having heard of Jesus Christ. I guess Ramachandran isn't the atheist's deity you thought he was.
Hyperbole.
Oh, is that the reason? Or is it because Hameroff's explanation required too much supernaturalism to be believed by the majority of atheists?
I find it almost funny how people act so surprised when atheists don't immediately open up to paranormal ideas the moment a god or religion is removed from the equation.
I'm beginning to wonder if a goodly number of non-atheists actually believe that the *only* reason we don't believe in god is because of the religion.
Oh, gimme a break.
It took the Catholic Church 500 years ... literally 500 years! ... to formally admit that Galileo had been correct all along about a heliocentric solar system. So let's not even go there about how the Church "admits" to its mistakes. If atheists are still "in love" with Ramachandran 500 years from now, then we'll talk.
At any rate, it's bad enough to overplay one's hand once. To continue to do it all throughout your post, well, i'll just say "tsk, tsk, tsk" for the time being.
Like I said, I've never heard of Ramachandran. Not even a whisper about this guy. I'm not seeing any of the major YouTube atheists gushing on about him. I'm not hearing his name popping up all the time (if ever) on the Atheist Experience. None of the atheists on this board have cited him or his theories as part of an argument (to the best of my knowledge) ...
If his explanations and hypotheses and whatnot have been successfully debunked -- I'm only taking your word that they even have been -- the vast, vast majority of atheists will move on, leaving whatever cult of personality Ramachandran manages to built up around himself.
But to suggest, imply, intimate, or connotate that Ramachandran is this massive atheist religious movement with him as the high priest -- or even the deity -- is patently absurd.
Wow, we do? Really?
Uhm ... *looks around* ... yeah, I was pretty certain there were no altars to Ramachandran anywhere in my house. There still aren't any. There never will be any.
And I'd bet everything I currently and ever will own right down to my last bobby pin that Ramachandran will never be anyone's "god" ... much less the god of any atheists.
What gets me though, is the ridiculous oxymoron.
"Yet atheists still regard this guy as their God."
Yeah, that sentence is an oxymoron. Why? Because the very SECOND a person begins to see any person, thing, or idea as an actual God, that person, BY DEFINITION, is no longer an atheist.
Duh.
So let's stop with the "God of atheists" rubbish, please? I beseech thee!
In other words, even IF those people -- whoever they are -- see Ramachandran as their "God," they aren't atheists and can no longer be used as an example of what atheists believe. They've converted to Ramachandaranism or some other nonsense, but they aren't atheists. Ergo, you need to stop calling them atheists. Or ... stop claiming that they worship Ramachandaran. It has to be one of the two.
So? His priesthood was incidental. No one said one has to be an atheist to advance the cause of science. But that wasn't the Catholic Church advancing science -- that was the mind and the work of a singular man (and his staff, I'm sure). In fact, Lemaitre got annoyed with the Pope when the Supreme Pontiff tried to claim that Lemaitre's work provided proof that Catholicism was true; Lemaitre quickly pointed out that his work was neutral and didn't provide any evidence for or against Catholicism.
And ... what's even more important ... is that you're talking about scientific advancement in the 20th Century. Sure, by THEN the Church had finally gotten with the program, so to speak, but for a large part of its history, religion in general -- including the Church -- was like the proverbial albatross around the neck of scientific discovery.
Yeah, I know we can point to various exceptions here and there. Not even religion is perfectly imperfect. It's not that science couldn't progress -- even though it progressed more slowly than a lazy turtle with three broken legs crawling up the face of a mountain. Everything had to align with the supernatural teachings of the Church and any fact that got in the way of fiction was squashed, it's discoverer slapped with a gag order under penalty of imprisonment, exile, and in some cases torture and execution. Of course, excommunication was almost a certainty -- as if the Church determines who goes to Heaven and God merely validates the Church's decision once the departed soul arrives at the so-called Pearly Gates.
Of course, the fundamentalistic and evangelistic aspects of religion are *still* in the habit of promoting and advocating censorship of anything that contradicts their religious ideology -- they don't want you to see anything you're "not supposed to see" whether you believe or not.
The Chruch of today is not the same Church it was for much of its history, namely because it has lost the majority of its influence over the world's various governments. Now, it, as well as other churches, must settle for invading Third World nations, giving them food while teaching a disease-riddled population that protected sex is bad.
And nothing brings out ridiculous, absurd, and hyperbolic statements like the one above than when an atheist dares to challenge NDE research.
Wow, it's almost as if we're living in the time of Galileo all over again. I'm certain many posters here would be under *ahem* house arrest even now merely for disagreeing with the research; whether the opinion has any merit or not isn't even the point. Just the temerity that anyone would dare disagree! After all, lots of hard work went into that confirmation bias.
Show me someone who's been dead for a couple of days who comes back and tells me all about their adventures in Heaven and then I'll be more open to it.
Right now, though ... being "dead" for a few hours isn't a long enough time for *any* evidence to be conclusive, especially if that "death" occurs under controlled, clinical conditions.
Just because our current machines do not detect any brain activity doesn't mean there isn't any. It could be such a miniscule amount that it is virtually undetectable with current technology but still enough to paint those experiences onto someone's fading internal awareness.
OBEs are a different matter, however, and are far more interesting.
However, arguing from the standpoint that atheism is an "anti-science fundamentalist religion" only makes you look hysterical (and I don't mean the comedic defintion, either).
It's forum debate basics -- never overplay your hand.
A Shirina post!!
You better have some "game" bippy...Shirina will just ride over you and leave you squashed in the dirt trying to figure out what just happened!
Good to see ya! Hope you will be able to make more posts soon.
A week, two, or three in between...leaves the board in various states of withdrawl. And now Matadora has cut way back...so that makes it all the worse.
Moderator cut: We'll leave the election discussions to other forums.
Last edited by mensaguy; 02-09-2017 at 06:49 AM..
Reason: Elections are off topic in this forum.
I agree with ya, Goldie, mate - Shirina and Matadora - two of the toughest babes on the boards. And it's great to have both posting in the same thread. It's like Joan of Arc and Boadicea both turning up at the same battle.
If one is going to attack science and atheism by comparing it to a religion, what, then, does that say about religion and deity worship?
Two things can contain the religion property while as a whole not inheriting the properties and characteristics that each one has as a result of all the properties combined.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
