The Anti-Christian Movement

on Feb 16, 2005

I hear of many being agnostic but I wonder if they realize the difference between agnostic and atheist. Agnostic by definition is a belief that you cannot know whether God exists or not. These are the "I can neither confirm nor deny" group. Sort of like hedging a bet maybe?
Atheist reject the possibility of God or gods, period.
Have defined the groups, I would say that the "non-believers" I meet mostly fall into the agnostic group. Very few are true atheists. Of the two I find the true atheists more amusing and engaging to chat with and read.

32

preacherman

on Feb 18, 2005

Man, Articles just don't have any life after hitting the third page heh

It could be because you are so offensive!

Just Kidding Helix

preacherman

33

MyViewsAndMuse

on Feb 20, 2005

You bathe in skunk urine? Why?

34

fmfyguy

on Feb 20, 2005

This has to be the lamest of all blogs. One "believes" in the unprovable. The issue should be not whether anyone is AntiChristian or not (I do feel sorry for the beating up of a majority as if you're afraid of being lynched or beat up like the whining minorities), it's really about if, when and how those "beliefs" of yours are imposing your complete acceptance of things on others.
Let's take, for example, that annoying issue of evolution. Science, which bases it's conclusions on observation, measurement and experimentation, in order to arrive at "knowledge" establishes, not the belief but the understanding that all life on this planet evolves ... one from another. Your religion (via a bible written by men) says God created man in His image. It also says He created the heavens and the earth. That's your "belief."
Fine! Teach it to your children as a matter of religious faith. Tell them never to question it ... or, after all, they will be then be questioning the very existence of God (or so you tell them). As far as "public" schools are concerned, keep that stuff the heck out of it and allow us to teach the best science there is. Don't attack evolution because it's just a "theory" unless you are willing to tell them what a "scientific theory" means (assuming you know what it means).
The fossil evidence; anotomical evidence; molecular evidence and DNA evidence says that man is related to primates (namely the Great Apes). The same "scientific approach" accurately relates evolutionary relationships for virtually all of the other living creatures and has even resolved long standing disputes regarding whether some species is really a bear or racoon (i.e., the Panda).
Religions—and Christians in particular of late—want everything to reflect their beliefs and their rules. They are creating a tremendous pressure on our society and, needless to say, some fear and concern. After all, they were the people who gave us the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch burnings and countless other retributions for people's irreligious ways. They selectively apply their biblical gospel (mythology) to support their prejudices (like gays, covering the statue of Lady Liberty with a drape to hide her hideously exposed breast, finding biblical justification for slavery, and numerous other things).
Well, I could go on and on and on with this. Get over it: you're a chimp (over 99% or your molecules and 98% or your DNA). So what! You are still what you are ... good or bad. You want to be special? Then, do something special! As far as you poor picked upon Christians: how does it feel?
By the way, you missed a category. It's Nonthiest. Try reading some of Bishop Sprang. Among other things, he'll point out a major historical fact to you: Jewish Scribes wrote the New Testament some 70-100 years after Christ supposidly lived. And, if you're looking for "logical" evidence of his existance (which I do not necessarily deny): why, if he was so very, very popular and scared the hell out of the Romans and Jewish priesthood, is there no mention of him in any historical documents of his time (including the Dead Sea Scrolls)? It isn't that you could not have Christianity without Jesus. It's that you couldn't have Chritianity without Saul (Paul to you). That said, I like what is attributed to Jesus. He was a good and decent person. In fact, he was clearly a Liberal (fi not a hippy). It's very sad to me how applicable his words about hypocrisy seem to apply to so many Christians today.

35

Dysmas

on Feb 20, 2005

I wonder, if science can completly explian everything, why Evolution is STILL a THEORY. Why isn't it a fact. You spoke of "The fossil evidence; anotomical evidence; molecular evidence and DNA evidence..." so if it is such a black and white issue why is it not fact?
You are intitled to your opinion, even if in your case it is narrow and borderline ignorant.
And on your very intelligent point

why, if he was so very, very popular and scared the hell out of the Romans and Jewish priesthood, is there no mention of him in any historical documents of his time

You do realize that Jesus was tried and killed as a criminal right? If the Jewish elite wanted to supress Him then what better way than simply not bring Him up. Its not like the people of the time had TV or the Internet.
Strange though, that in the end, Christianity has the final laugh.
A pretty powerful and world wide faith for a person who may not have existed, I mean afterall, its very common for fabricated individuals to be the founder and center of a major, and in this case THE major, religion of world.
Im wasteing my time I know. But why not. I figure if one sided, ignorant articles can be posted I might as well play along.
fmfyguy

36

messybuu

on Feb 21, 2005

This has to be the lamest of all blogs. One "believes" in the unprovable. The issue should be not whether anyone is AntiChristian or not (I do feel sorry for the beating up of a majority as if you're afraid of being lynched or beat up like the whining minorities), it's really about if, when and how those "beliefs" of yours are imposing your complete acceptance of things on others.

What's funny is that nobody here is imposing our beliefs onto others. Look at you telling others what's right and what's wrong. What's the difference?

Let's take, for example, that annoying issue of evolution. Science, which bases it's conclusions on observation, measurement and experimentation, in order to arrive at "knowledge" establishes, not the belief but the understanding that all life on this planet evolves ... one from another. Your religion (via a bible written by men) says God created man in His image. It also says He created the heavens and the earth. That's your "belief."
Fine! Teach it to your children as a matter of religious faith. Tell them never to question it ... or, after all, they will be then be questioning the very existence of God (or so you tell them). As far as "public" schools are concerned, keep that stuff the heck out of it and allow us to teach the best science there is. Don't attack evolution because it's just a "theory" unless you are willing to tell them what a "scientific theory" means (assuming you know what it means).

What's funny is that people are now taught not to question science. Sure, the scientific community is credible, but not infallible.

Religions—and Christians in particular of late—want everything to reflect their beliefs and their rules. They are creating a tremendous pressure on our society and, needless to say, some fear and concern. After all, they were the people who gave us the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch burnings and countless other retributions for people's irreligious ways. They selectively apply their biblical gospel (mythology) to support their prejudices (like gays, covering the statue of Lady Liberty with a drape to hide her hideously exposed breast, finding biblical justification for slavery, and numerous other things).

What's funny is that Christians aren't the only ones who want everything to reflect their beliefs and their rules. Look at homosexuals, Democrats, feminists, animal rights activists, minorities, etc. What makes Christians so bad when everybody in the world wants things to be the way they want them to be?

What's also funny is that Christians aren't the only people who have committed atrocities in the world (i.e. the Japanese weren't Christian, nor were the Chinese, nor the communists), and they also aren't the only hypocrites in the world.

Well, I could go on and on and on with this. Get over it: you're a chimp (over 99% or your molecules and 98% or your DNA). So what! You are still what you are ... good or bad. You want to be special? Then, do something special! As far as you poor picked upon Christians: how does it feel?

So, having 98% of similar DNA makes us the same species as another animal?

By the way, you missed a category. It's Nonthiest.

Nontheists are atheists. That's what the a means. Like with anarchy.

37

preacherman

on Feb 21, 2005

The fossil evidence; anotomical evidence; molecular evidence and DNA evidence says that man is related to primates (namely the Great Apes). The same "scientific approach" accurately relates evolutionary relationships for virtually all of the other living creatures and has even resolved long standing disputes regarding whether some species is really a bear or racoon (i.e., the Panda).

the only difference between you and me fmfyguy is that you are putting all your eggs (faith) in science I am putting mine in a God that is taught in the Bible.

Let's say you are correct?

What will be our outcome?
Let's say I am correct?

Eternity is a long, long time!

preacherman

38

fmfyguy

on Feb 21, 2005

the only difference between you and me fmfyguy is that you are putting all your eggs (faith) in science I am putting mine in a God that is taught in the Bible.Let's say you are correct? What will be our outcome?Let's say I am correct? Eternity is a long, long time!

I didn't mean to get into an argument with all of you devout folks. I can't convince you. I mean, one guy asks that "if 98% of our DNA is the same does that mean we are the same species?". Actually, it means we must be related. As far as all your eggs in one basket ... well, that's a winner too. Are you saying that you are putting your eggs in as many baskets as possible? Insurance?

Listen, religion is a social structure that provides rules for people living together. That's fine. However, the bible(s), if taken literally, are no recipe for defining knowledge. Think of how many things religions forbade and punished or just defined as "true" that have turned out wrong when science and technology made real understanding possible. If you say gays are no good because the bible tells you so .. you are a dangerous fool. And, that is the problem (gays just used as an example). All religions believe they are the one-true answer but they cannot all be the "one." Men wrote the books. Priests wrote the rules. Religion wants to stay away from doubting, questioning and exploring. Religion has always given a simple answer when man could not define one any other way. God has always been the Ultimate Cause for every Effect one could not understand (lightening, etc.).

No offense intended ... if you are "good" and decent people. Jerry Falwell is not nor is Pat Robertson and a bunch of other very powerful men who want to control people lives. That's the problem. In the past, it was the religion that was the problem and not the people. Now it's the people who are the problem and not the religion.

39

fmfyguy

on Feb 21, 2005

You do realize that Jesus was tried and killed as a criminal right? If the Jewish elite wanted to supress Him then what better way than simply not bring Him up. Its not like the people of the time had TV or the Internet.Strange though, that in the end, Christianity has the final laugh.

I don't much care if Jesus really lived or not. What I care about as those MOST of you pious, self-righteous, we're right-you're wrong, intellectually lazy people don't know tindley about your own religion. What you know is your bible (if that) and "0" about when it was written, who wrote, what was going on at the time, and so on and so on and so on.

Do some reading that is not religious propaganda. Have you even read the Hebrew Scriptures (not the New Testament which was originally translated from the Aramic by Alexander the Great. As far as the Jews burying any trace of Jesus well that's just idiotic. The writings and stories of James the Just (Jesus' brother) abound. The point was that if he was popluar enough to be a threat to Herod so that the first born were all slaughtered (mirrors the Moses fairy tale) then how come only the Romans picked up the faith after Paul ventured there and gave up preaching the Jewish faith with Jesus as a prophet and turned to preaching Christianity as a separate faith and not an offshoot?
You know little to nothing about Judiaism and a touch more about Christianity. If you're so damn sure you got the perfect faith and you're going to laugh your butt off in eternity then read some other stuff. Test it for yourself. Open the brain God supposedly gave you to other sources and other interpretations. If not, you're a narrow minded fool that just "knows" their right.
You are related to a chimp and that's all there is to that! You're not a chimp though and that's the rub. Or is it that according to current evolutionary knowledge man most likely came out of Africa. Oh my God, we're darkies!

40

messybuu

on Feb 21, 2005

I didn't mean to get into an argument with all of you devout folks. I can't convince you. I mean, one guy asks that "if 98% of our DNA is the same does that mean we are the same species?". Actually, it means we must be related. As far as all your eggs in one basket ... well, that's a winner too. Are you saying that you are putting your eggs in as many baskets as possible? Insurance?

Yes, and as I said, it doesn't mean that humans are chimpanzees. All it means it that 98% of our DNA is the same as that of chimpanzees'. We could make assumptions about what such results mean, but they'll be but assumptions.

As for putting our eggs in as many baskets as possible, how are we doing that by placing our faith in God before we place our faith in man? How is placing our eggs in one basket equal placing our eggs in many baskets?

Listen, religion is a social structure that provides rules for people living together. That's fine. However, the bible(s), if taken literally, are no recipe for defining knowledge. Think of how many things religions forbade and punished or just defined as "true" that have turned out wrong when science and technology made real understanding possible.

Taking the entire Bible literal would be rather naive, but taking what's meant to be literal as literal (i.e. Genesis) doesn't keep one from garnering knowledge, unless you're telling me that all Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis have no knowledge.

Personally, I'd say blindly placing one's entire faith in man is not a recipe for garnering knowledge. Many of these people don't even study these things they embrace! Can you believe that people who actually criticize fundamentalists for not being "scientific" enough don't even know that viruses aren't technically living creatures and are unable to reproduce on their own?

If you say gays are no good because the bible tells you so .. you are a dangerous fool. And, that is the problem (gays just used as an example).

Hating any group for who they are is dangerous, and it's certainly not exclusive to serious Christians. Christians are to love everybody, even the sinful, for they are sinful themselves.

All religions believe they are the one-true answer but they cannot all be the "one." Men wrote the books. Priests wrote the rules. Religion wants to stay away from doubting, questioning and exploring. Religion has always given a simple answer when man could not define one any other way. God has always been the Ultimate Cause for every Effect one could not understand (lightening, etc.).

God still is the Ultimate Cause for lightning, etc.

No offense intended ... if you are "good" and decent people. Jerry Falwell is not nor is Pat Robertson and a bunch of other very powerful men who want to control people lives. That's the problem. In the past, it was the religion that was the problem and not the people. Now it's the people who are the problem and not the religion.

Yes, and there are a bunch of anti-Christian assholes, which is why Gideon wrote this article. It's like that saying: "There's one in every family."

41

fmfyguy

on Feb 21, 2005

I wonder, if science can completly explian everything, why Evolution is STILL a THEORY. Why isn't it a fact. You spoke of "The fossil evidence; anotomical evidence; molecular evidence and DNA evidence..." so if it is such a black and white issue why is it not fact?

Here's where the brain-washing is most obvious. You haven't the faintest idea what a "scientific theory" is. And, you confuse "fact" with absolute certainty. First, a "scientific theory" is not a hypothesis nor is it speculation. It can start as speculation. For example, the apple fell on Newton's head. He could "speculate" about why. Then we test it. We do that through observation, measurement and experimentation. When it seems to fit all of the available scientific criteria, we call it a theory. Newton's equations represented the theory of gravity. Then along came Einstein. The theory was modified to account for new information, new observation and new technology (higher math in this case). It became Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Evolution is the same thing. Darwin observed and compared and, with the limitations of the science of his day, he posulated the Theory of Evolution. He "speculated" in the Decent of Man, that man evolved FROM an apelike creature and was, in fact, a primate. He compared the anatomy of apes, chimps, gorillas and man. They are, for all practical purposes, the same.

Then came fossil discoveries and eventually molecular research that enabled us to measure specific proteins in the blood. Then, of course, came DNA ... the common thread to ALL LIVING THINGS. Nothing—THAT'S NOTHING—has yet contradicted Darwin's basic theory regarding the evolution not of man but of all species enhabiting this planet. You probably don't argue about most findings in evolutionary science because they aren't talking about you. But, when we talk about you ... well, that's different.

Science keeps things as "theories" because new technology, exploration (observation) and experimentation occurs to either refine or disprove the theory. Evolution is as much a fact as facts can be. Your beliefs, on the other hand, are not subject to test, measurment or experimentation. Why? Well, they are facts! And how do you now that? Well, you just know that!

Your preachers, teachers, priests, rabbis and divine sources come up with such stupid lines as "well, gee, why isn't it a fact? It's only a theory." That's aimed at the ignorant in an effort to keep them that way. In your case, it's working very, very well.

42

fmfyguy

on Feb 21, 2005

Nontheists are atheists. That's what the a means. Like with anarchy.

Sorry to have confused you my all-knowing person created in God's image. Theism, the existence of supernatural beings that create all things is a generality. Atheism is normally associated with a belief in a monotheistic God, like yours. NonTheist is a person who "rejects" the entire concept of the existence of any form of belief in such things. It's a knit I guess but I'd rather not be seen as someone simply at odds with the Judeo-Christian-Moslem concept of God.

If it makes you more comfortable, God's are for making wars. God's are for why you are better than me ... or the chimp. God's are a excuse for intellectual laziness and rejection of our being just one of those lowly animals that has inhabited this planet.

After reading some of the material on this blog, I have to apologize ... to the chimps, apes and gorillas. We are so full of ourselves that it's pathetic.

43

messybuu

on Feb 21, 2005

Sorry to have confused you my all-knowing person created in God's image. Theism, the existence of supernatural beings that create all things is a generality. Atheism is normally associated with a belief in a monotheistic God, like yours. NonTheist is a person who "rejects" the entire concept of the existence of any form of belief in such things. It's a knit I guess but I'd rather not be seen as someone simply at odds with the Judeo-Christian-Moslem concept of God.

So, you're saying that there's a difference between atheism (the lack of belief in deities (which means both polytheism and monotheism) and nontheism (the lack of belief in deities both polytheism and monotheism and which isn't a real word), and because I don't see this difference, I must think I'm Mr. Know-It-Alll?

If it makes you more comfortable, God's are for making wars. God's are for why you are better than me ... or the chimp. God's are a excuse for intellectual laziness and rejection of our being just one of those lowly animals that has inhabited this planet.

Intellectually lazy? Can you honestly call others this when you claimed that humans were chimpanzees even though a quick bit of research would have shown otherwise?

After reading some of the material on this blog, I have to apologize ... to the chimps, apes and gorillas. We are so full of ourselves that it's pathetic.

Yes. If you can't even admit that you were mistaken about humans being chimpanzees, then you are full of yourself.

You want to know from where the stigma of atheism originates? Look in the mirror. You're not more intelligent or wiser than Christians, and your inability to question science (even I sometimes question my own Christianity) makes you no different than anybody else who won't question their beliefs.

44

preacherman

on Feb 21, 2005

Are you saying that you are putting your eggs in as many baskets as possible? Insurance?

fmfyguy- faith is not a blind hope (insurance) The Word of God says "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1 The hope mentioned in this context is not the hope so mentality of our day but yet is based on evidence.... a judical term that speaks of truth that is revealed to prove ones case. Incriminating evidence is you please.

So you might say where is the proof- The Word of God. The only problem is it can not to be understood by the wise, only the fools. For the Word of God and His Wisdom is foolishness to the world (wise with human intelect).Sorry!

you are a dangerous fool

I would have to agree with you I am a fool by the wisdom of this worlds standard, but here again God's Word says "the FOOL hath said in his heart... there is no God". The believer would rather be considered a fool by the world than they would by God.

How 'bout it would you consider the foolishness of God's Word? His name is Christ and why in the world would He die for you and I? Sounds so foolish, doesn't it.

preacherman

45

MyViewsAndMuse

on Feb 21, 2005

Good stuff. Listen, I've said it before (well at least one other place here) and I'll say it again. Evolution deals with an existing living system. It does not, cannot and will not explain where or how life began. Let the *wise* believe what they will, why bother?
The fact remains, life came from somewhere not evolution. Man has tried many times to create life and the best it has ever been is some amino acids. Building block of life? Sure, so is the atom and many other things. It stil does not constitute life. To believe that life came from inanimate objects through the magic of chemistry sounds just as foolish as believing in God.

And of course, the *wise* and renowned atheist Mr. Flew now agrees that there was intelligent design involved. In his day he would beat any atheist here in arguing against the existence of God. I think amatuers are what you find here. However the humor they provide is one of the many reasons I come to this site

And before someone makes the assumption, the fact that some major atheist has had a change in heart is not what is important. But it is interesting....