14 Mar 14
Originally posted by woodypusherQuote from the link: "...the Bible was written or edited long after the events it narrates and is not always reliable as verifiable history."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/science/camels-had-no-business-in-genesis.html?smid=fb-share
Not even the gospels were written at the time when the the stories happened. therefore there are a lot of glitches in them. They are written of an agenda.
Another quote: "The camel’s influence on biblical research was profound, if confusing, for that happened to be the time that the patriarchal stories were committed to writing and eventually canonized as part of the Hebrew Bible."
Well, don't trust the bible. It's written by people of a reason.
16 Mar 14
5 edits
Originally posted by EladarI think "Science anti-dangerously-delusional-religion forum" would be more precise. I believe I speak for most but not necessarily all scientists here when I say we are against ALL the religions, especially the most delusional kinds, not just the Christian kind or creationist kind although the creationist kind is clearly one of the worst kinds.
They should probably rename this forum the "Science anti-Christian forum" for the stuff the threads they allow to continue and posters who are allowed to continue unchecked.
Not that I'm complaining, just pointing out the obvious.
We only have to think of 9/11 to see why we think delusional religion is dangerous -the fact that they were Muslim and not Christian is irrelevant for one delusional absurd belief, regardless of what it is such as there is God, makes it easier to have others including the absurdity that it is OK to murder people for religious reason.
But if anyone here wants a Christian example, another example is all the leading Nazis in WW2 that were all, without a single exception, including Hitler himself that was catholic and baptized as such, Christian. And, who delusionally believed that God guided evolution to evolve their 'superior' race and they where doing God's work by murdering the 'inferior' races. And, contrary to what some Creationists have been saying, this is NOT Darwin's theory. Contrary to common belief, He didn't even coin the phrase "survival of the fittest"! -because that is a silly simplistic misrepresentation of his theory. If it was just about "survival of the fittest", peacocks wouldn't evolve tail feathers.
If it sounds that I am complaining here, it is because I am.
16 Mar 14
Originally posted by humyWhy do you need to exchange the word Christian with the words dangerously-delusional-religion? Why not simply put a comma? You know:
I think "Science anti-dangerously-delusional-religion forum" would be more precise. I believe I speak for most but not necessarily all scientists here when I say we are against ALL the religions, especially the most delusional kinds, not just the Christian kind or creationist kind although the creationist kind is clearly one of the worst kinds.
We only have ...[text shortened]... s wouldn't evolve tail feathers.
If it sounds that I am complaining here, it is because I am.
"Science anti-Christianity-a-dangerously-delusional-religion forum"
17 Mar 14
Originally posted by EladarYou don't address the topic of the thread. Does that mean that even you are aware that there are numerous lies in the bible? That the bible is a fabricated of people with an agenda?
They should probably rename this forum the "Science anti-Christian forum" for the stuff the threads they allow to continue and posters who are allowed to continue unchecked.
Not that I'm complaining, just pointing out the obvious.
17 Mar 14
5 edits
Originally posted by EladarBecause it clearly isn't only the Christian religion that can be dangerous ( think of 9/11 ) and, in this modern age of science and reason, at least for the reasonably educated that have no excuse for such extreme ignorance, ALL religion, not just the Christian kind in particular, is delusional. The only reason why you don't see much criticism of other religions in this science forum is simply because it does seem that the vast majority of posts from theists that come to the science forum are pro-Christian ones and not because we scientists are necessarily generally more against the Christian religion than other religions. I for one am about roughly equally against all the types of religion although I think the creationist kinds, whether of the Cristian kinds or not, are surely more delusional than most and, therefore, probably more dangerous.
Why do you need to exchange the word Christian with the words dangerously-delusional-religion? Why not simply put a comma? You know:
"Science anti-Christianity-a-dangerously-delusional-religion forum"
17 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humyBecause it clearly isn't only the Christian religion that can be dangerous ( think of 9/11 )
and, in this modern age of science and reason, at least for the reasonably educated that have no excuse for such extreme ignorance, ALL religion, not just the Christian kind in particular, is delusional. The only reason why you don't see much criticism of other religions in this science forum is simply because it does seem that the vast majority of posts from t ...[text shortened]... tian kinds or not, are surely more delusional than most and, therefore, probably more dangerous.
Classic! You are the perfect example of why humanistic extremists are dangerous and delusional. Look in the mirror before you try to put others down.
Putting that aside, this forum seems to only go after Christians so I think the title of the forum should reflect that fact. When the forum grows to attack other competing religions (like Christianity competes with your religion) those should be included too.
17 Mar 14
Originally posted by EladarHumy: "Because it clearly isn't only the Christian religion that can be dangerous ( think of 9/11 )"
[b]Because it clearly isn't only the Christian religion that can be dangerous ( think of 9/11 )
Classic! You are the perfect example of why humanistic extremists are dangerous and delusional. Look in the mirror before you try to put others down.
Putting that aside, this forum seems to only go after Christians so I think the title of the forum sho ...[text shortened]... ompeting religions (like Christianity competes with your religion) those should be included too.[/b]
Eladar: "Classic! You are the perfect example of why humanistic extremists are dangerous and delusional. Look in the mirror before you try to put others down."
I don't understand this outburst... Do you think humy is a fundamentalist? Or do you think he is a muslim? Or what do you think of him? Could you explain further so even I understand your outburst?
17 Mar 14
Originally posted by EladarLike FabianFnas, I don't understand your post.
[b]Because it clearly isn't only the Christian religion that can be dangerous ( think of 9/11 )
Classic! You are the perfect example of why humanistic extremists are dangerous and delusional. Look in the mirror before you try to put others down.
Putting that aside, this forum seems to only go after Christians so I think the title of the forum sho ...[text shortened]... ompeting religions (like Christianity competes with your religion) those should be included too.[/b]
... humanistic extremists are dangerous and delusional ...
That doesn't make any sense for two reasons:
firstly, what are “humanistic extremists”? I mean, that is like saying “moderate extremists”.
Second, how can a humanist be “dangerous and delusional” because he is a humanist?
Do you know what a humanist actually is?
Look at the definitions below:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanistic
hu·man·ist (hyo̅o̅′mə-nĭst)
n.
1. A believer in the principles of humanism.
2. One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.
3.
a. A classical scholar.
b. A student of the liberal arts.
4. Humanist A Renaissance scholar devoted to Humanism.
5.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=humanistic
S: (adj) humanist, humanistic (of or pertaining to a philosophy asserting human dignity and man's capacity for fulfillment through reason and scientific method and often rejecting religion)
OK, now take “humanistic extremists”; so there are people that are “extremists” for having a “ philosophy asserting human dignity and man's capacity for fulfillment through reason and scientific method and often rejecting religion”? That doesn't make sense. And how can someone be “dangerous and delusional” because he is a humanist i.e. because he uses reason and scientific method and thus probably rejects religion?
...with your religion
I have none.
17 Mar 14
Originally posted by humyReligious fanatics have totally wacked out beliefs, which do not allow them to see their beliefs and themselves as what they are. Some wacked out fanatics (like yourself) believe that their religious beliefs are simply facts therefore believe that they do not have religious beliefs.
Like FabianFnas, I don't understand your post.
... humanistic extremists are dangerous and delusional ...
That doesn't make any sense for two reasons:
firstly, what are “humanistic extremists”? I mean, that is like saying “moderate extremists”.
Second, how can a humanist be “dangerous and delusional” because he is a humanis ...[text shortened]... and thus probably rejects religion?
...with your religion
I have none.
17 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Eladar
Religious fanatics have totally wacked out beliefs, which do not allow them to see their beliefs and themselves as what they are. Some wacked out fanatics (like yourself) believe that their religious beliefs are simply facts therefore believe that they do not have religious beliefs.
Some wacked out fanatics (like yourself) believe that their religious beliefs are simply facts
There is just so much wrong with that! :-
I am a “fanatic” of what exactly?
I do not have “religious beliefs” -if you refute this, I challenge you to state what they are!
And I do not believe that ANY “religious beliefs are simply facts”.
Please state EXACTLY what you believe I believe. Please be SPECIFIC; don't just say "religious beliefs” without saying EXACTLY which ones.
17 Mar 14
Originally posted by humyWe've gone over this several times already. You have no intention of actually looking at your beliefs. You have demonstrated that you are incapable of seeing your beliefs as nothing but absolute truth.Some wacked out fanatics (like yourself) believe that their religious beliefs are simply facts
There is just so much wrong with that! :-
I am a “fanatic” of what exactly?
I do not have “religious beliefs” -if you refute this, I challenge you to state what they are!
And I do not believe that ANY “religious beliefs are simply facts”.
...[text shortened]... lieve. Please be SPECIFIC; don't just say "religious beliefs” without saying EXACTLY which ones.
But hey, I'll play along:
You believe that evolution is true and that a supernatural power did not create the Universe.
17 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Eladar
We've gone over this several times already. You have no intention of actually looking at your beliefs. You have demonstrated that you are incapable of seeing your beliefs as nothing but absolute truth.
But hey, I'll play along:
You believe that evolution is true and that a supernatural power did not create the Universe.
You believe that evolution is true and that a supernatural power did not create the Universe.
Correct. There is empirical proof for evolution and there is Occam’s razor that implies amongst other things that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a goddidit belief is irrational because you would have to first assume a superfluous god. So where is this religion or dangerous delusional belief of mine? One belief is based on evidence and the other on logic and I don't want/desire either to be true or false in particular (i.e. indifferent ) therefore neither is based on faith nor a belief in a god or gods nor something supernatural thus these are clearly not religious beliefs by definition of what we usually mean by religion in discourse.
Hypothetically, if there was no evidence nor logic to support evolution theory but there was good evidence for a god existing then, without hesitation, I would believe there is no evolution and there is a god -but then that would mean it wouldn't be religion and no faith required but just a part of science!!!! Either way, I base my beliefs on evidence and logic and not faith nor what I want to be true.
17 Mar 14
Originally posted by humyYou are saying that you base your religion on Occam's razor. OK.You believe that evolution is true and that a supernatural power did not create the Universe.
Correct. There is empirical proof for evolution and there is Occam’s razor that implies amongst other things that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a goddidit belief is irrational because you would have to first assume a superfluous god. ...[text shortened]... !! Either way, I base my beliefs on evidence and logic and not faith nor what I want to be true.