The Atheist Thread

mystic fred wrote:      if you walk through any town centre late on a saturday night you will wonder where 4 billion years of evolution and two thousand years of religion has got us at all

Religion goes back further than 2000 years, but i agree with what you're saying.
    

toolsofthetrade wrote: to assembling life from non life - to assume this came about without such designers is pretty implausable. To me, both evolution and creationism are pretty absurd - the general notion of a universe coming into existence and creating life is absurd

This has got nothing to do with evolution.

for evolution to take place, life must originate first

toolsofthetrade wrote: yes it has. life must originate from somehere, and life leads to evolution.

The question of how life began is irrelevant to evolution.

For evolution to occur there has to be life.

The theor of evolution says nothing about how non-organic molecules became organic or how life began or however you want to put it.

mystic fred wrote: toolsofthetrade wrote: And whoever said evolution has been proved many times over is kinda wrong. The scientific method involves empirical observation and repeatable experimentation under measured conditions. Evolution has not been observed (and i don't mean species variation, i mean actual molecules to man evolution), and scientists adopting the roles of intelligent designers have not come close to assembling life from non life - to assume this came about without such designers is pretty implausable. To me, both evolution and creationism are pretty absurd - the general notion of a universe coming into existence and creating life is absurd because it seems so supernatural, and thus attempting to explain it through natural means will always seem absurd to me ( note seems, regardless of whether it's right or wrong). However, the theory of evolution is the closest we've got to a robust theory about the creation and myriad complexities of life, so even though it's flawed and a lot is contention, i guess it must be accepted. And to diehard evolutionists, come on, the other guy was right, think about it for a second, it's silly. very silly, almost as silly as creationism.     you're only 17, nic, things that seem silly when you're young become deeply profound years later, such as evolution and religion![IMG]height=17 alt=Smile src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley1.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>

So when i'm older, i'll find the idea of fish turning into humans profound? Don't get me wrong, i'm not stating evolution is right or wrong, just that the notion is absurd, like the notion of creationism is absurd, and i believe the absurdity lies in the fact that the creation of the universe and life seems so supernatural. That's my point, not debating whether evolution is right or wrong - on the surface level, when you think about it, both evolution and creationism APPEAR absurd, and the atheist claiming how ridiculous creationism is should just look at how evolution appears. I believe myself to be of the age when i have the sufficient mental faculties to judge whether something APPEARS absurd or not.
    

Logos wrote: toolsofthetrade wrote: yes it has. life must originate from somehere, and life leads to evolution. The question of how life began is irrelevant to evolution.For evolution to occur there has to be life.The theor of evolution says nothing about how non-organic molecules became organic or how life began or however you want to put it.

Oh for pete's sake i meant the current scientific explanation in general. abiogenesis, which leads to evolution, the whole process. my point being the evolutionary theory is flawed, but still, it is a scientific theory, which is different from the common definition of a theory, and as such it is the closest we have to a robust knowledge of how life came to be as it is today, so it must be accepted. I'm not against the theory of evolution
    

Hi Ivan, and thank you for your statements regarding BetterHuman.org. You've helped me immensely in identifying where incorrect perceptions can take hold. As a result, I have made many changes to my website to better represent our organization.

In regard to our ‘Contact Us’ web page, we had the following:

“We do not take private donations from individuals”

To which you responded:

“Wow everything is clear now, they don't want members because they don't need them, it's obvious they live from donations from private institutions, the suffix ORG implies they are most surely receiving support from a (many) private (s) organisation (s).”

Your assumptions are quite incorrect my friend. To date, BetterHuman.org has collected exactly ‘zero’ donations. Our entire website, advertising, book printing, and all expenses required to realize and sustain this effort has be entirely funded out of my own pocket.

Also, the purpose behind not accepting private donations is to prevent the paradigm of BetterHuman.org from ever becoming another Scientology that serves no other purpose than to take advantage of the innocent, insecure, or uneducated. By removing both the notions of membership and private donations from our inherent structure, it will be very difficult for future generations to contort our primary directive of education, into a monetary engine.

Your next statement:

“In other words they don't spread their view to make humanity free of terrible religion, but to justify their salaries and the donations from non particular private institutons”

All members of BetterHuman.org are unpaid volunteers. All proceeds from book sales go directly back into the costs of advertising. Currently, after all expenses, we ‘lose’ approx $27 per book, for which I cover the gap from my personal income.

We are not about profit, we are only about education.

Your next statement:

“Their essential misssion on earth is to sell a book called Meme”

My friend, it’s impossible to print books for free. We also (decidedly) do not have the financial backing of millions of ethereal addicts like religions do and as such we have no choice but to necessarily recover some of the expenses related to publication by offering our literature at a more than fair price of ~$14, of which $10 goes immediately to printing and distribution. The remaining $4 can’t begin to cover advertising costs.

Your next statement:

“So aren't they doing an evangelism of Atheism and acting exactly as a religion? The big diference is that SOME Evangelists are really concerned about the teachings, this guys have found a profitable business.”

I believe you are confusing the term ‘religion’ for ‘philosophy’. BetterHuman.org defines a religion as an organization that teaches mythology as fact, purporting the existence of ethereal entities (gods) or concepts (afterlife, reincarnation) in our universe. By this definition, we are the very antithesis of religion. However, to your intended point, we are indeed a ‘philosophy’, and yes, we are spreading our perceptions much like any other philosophical organization necessarily has to in order to be effective.

As for your accusation of evangelism, which I’m assuming is meant to imply profiteering off the innocent, again, please understand that BetterHuman.org is a non-profit organization that has spent ‘thousands’ of dollars more than it has earned, and we couldn’t be happier with the results.

My friend, please make no mistake, you will be unable to point the ‘con-artist’ finger at BetterHuman.org. We are only here to educate, not profit.

And to your final statement:

“At least you can find a free Bible in any hotel”

Incorrect my friend, those books are paid for by the millions of collection plate donations made by people who were conned into believing they are purchasing their way into a mythological afterlife. If you wish to continue promoting this sad abuse of their miseducation, feel free to enjoy reading your ‘free’ copy of the syringe of ethereal addiction.

Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin


BetterHuman.org Authenticity Code:
4b088494-c490-4189-8119-36db726816d9

science can never explain the breath of life or why a heart beats involuntarily

Edited by DallasBryan - January 06 2007 at 19:22

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: To SeanSinjin:   I'm now more convinced that your site is acting as many Evangelist sites, saying incomplete or partial truths:   Common Misassumptions Flawed Logic that if something can't be completely proven, then what seems to be the opposite 'must' be true (reverse pseudo-logic) http://wind.securenet-server.net/~galgitr6/Meme/OurMission.htm    You're saying that God existence can't be completel proved then using "reverse pseudo logic" you're asuming the exact opposite must be true and for that reason God doesn't exist.   You're using the exact same mechanism you criticize.   But the most dangeroous thing is when you generalize and or lie:   Science that there is no solid evidence to support the Theory of Evolution that religion and science can mutually coexist, or even support one another that all science is of the same credibility that science is trying to hold a position of fact instead of theory that DNA was the beginning of life that once a paradox or irreconcilable dispute is exposed in a portion of a theory, then the entire theory needs to be completely rejected that if evolution was true, religions globally would concede its validity that entropy outpaces the natural creation of order that Einstein believed in a god http://wind.securenet-server.net/~galgitr6/Meme/OurMission.htm    All of this statemens describe different perceptions of different religions, for example:   Catholic Church accepts the Theotry of Evolution. Religion and Science can coexist, again the Vatican has one of the most powerful telescopes dedicated to research the origins of humanity, different religions support scientific institutions You put fanatics and religious in the same sack, most of the issues you include as absolute flaws in Religions when only are objections to science believed by radical groups. About Einstein, well you need a Ouija table to know what he really believed. Now there are others that are naive to say the less, I will place my comments in blue inside the quote: About Atheism that atheists consider themselves to be their own gods That's absolutely ridiculous, the prefix A means No and Theo means God, in the moment they believe in themselves as Gods they would cease to be atheists. that atheists are angry with God How can they be angry with an entity they don't belñieve in? that atheists believe they came from 'nothing' No, different atheists have different conceptions that the legal system defines the atheist moral code The legal system must be acceprted by everybody, the Bible clearly states this "Give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar and give to God what beloings to God". There is even a parragraph from the Acts of the Apostles where people is encouraged to obey the laws.I think it is in Romans 13. that atheists are materialistic (in the greed sense) Some are, some aren't, greed is a characteristivc of human race. By the contrary most of the jokes about greed have the Jewish community as their victims and not the atheists. that atheistic morality is entirely subjective, inconsistent, and fleeting Morality is a flexible term and for that reason subjective, what is moral in some zones of Central Africa or in the Peruvian Andes is not moral in other places of the world, so every moral is subjective. that atheism is communism No, the opposite Commusim is atheist, that's different. that atheism is Satanism Only a moron can believe this, Satan is a divinity, a negative one but a divinity, a Satanist can't be an atheist because hewho believes in the devil believe in a form of divibnity and even more, believes in the coexistence of God. that Hitler was an atheist Anybody with a bit of historical knowledge knows that this is false, Hitler was rejected by most churches despite being a Christian by birth, so he tried to rebuild a Christian Church for his purpose. I never heard a Christian say this.  I read somewhere that Hitler wanted to bring back the old German Gods and didn't shut down churches because he knew the follies of trying to force the church to do something else.   Transmiting a philosophy based in untruth facts or incomplete truths is not the best option in my opinion, you complain against the fear created by religions to hell,  but you use the fear of people to look like an ignorant as a weapon to make your form of atheistic evangelism.   Iván

^^ I don't get what you said about the motives. Please explain.