How science and atheism became a "religion"

Religions > Atheism > How science and atheism became a "religion"

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 7

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Jd"
Date:	10 Aug 2004 07:14:28 PM
Object:	How science and atheism became a "religion"

By pan-atheism.
"Creators of the term "pan-atheism" maintain that it is a
pseudo-pantheism because "pan-atheists" do not adhere to the
definition of pantheism which states that "All in God and God in All";
rather their beliefs are better encapsulated by the definition: "All
is Nature" and "Nature is All"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-atheism
Their "god" is nature, i.e. the goddess Mother Earth A.K.A "Gaia".
Here's how a notable scientist which is still living (James Lovelock)
describes this immortal female deity:
"single, self-regulating biological organism that acted intelligently
and beneficently to maintain life" (Yoga Journal, March/April 1992, p.
26).
Here's Carl Sagan on the religion of "science":
"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe
as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of
reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or
later, such a religion will emerge." —Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994)
Here's Al Gore on the Goddess:
"A growing number of anthropologists and archeo-mythologists argue
that the prevailing ideology of belief in prehistoric Europe and much
of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who
was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among
all living things." - Al Gore (Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the
Human Spirit)
Here's Ruskie Mike:
"To me, nature is sacred. Trees are my temples and forests are my
cathedrals." — Mikhail Gorbachev
Which brings us to the "Earth Charter" which was ceremoniously placed
in the "Ark of Hope" (as the 10 Commandments were placed in the Ark of
the Covenant) and synbolically illustrates how leaders of the world
are desirous to create a New World religion for you, to guide your
behaviour, one that is defined by environmental science... and the
goddess Gaia:
"My hope is that this charter will be a kind of Ten Commandments, a
"Sermon on the Mount," that provides a guide for human behavior toward
the environment in the next century and beyond."
— Mikhail Gorbachev
------------------ The "Earth Charter" ------------------
"The Earth Charter is a declaration of international values and
principles thought to be a necessary for building a just, sustainable,
and peaceful future. The idea of a Charter originated in 1987, when
the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development
called for a new charter regarding fundamental principles for
sustainable development. In 1992, the need for a charter was urged by
then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali at the Rio Earth Summit.
In 1994, the Earth Charter Initiative was formed by Maurice Stong,
secretary general of the Earth Summit and chairman of the Earth
Counsel, Mikhail Gorbachev, who was then president of Green Cross
International, with support with the government of The Netherlands."
"In the United States, members of the Religious Right have found the
document alarming, in part because it is secular, and therefore
contains no reference to the doctrines of Judeo-Christianity.
In addition, some conservatives cite a statement by Gorbachev that the
document is "a kind of Ten Commandments", and the fact that at the
2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South
Africa, a copy of the document was placed symbolically in an "Ark of
Hope" which resembles the Ark of the Covenant.
Thus, some see the Charter as a proposed replacement for the Ten
Commandments, and part of a conspiracy to establish a New World
Religion that replaces Christianity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Charter
Science has found that Christianity is responsible for killing the
ancient Goddess (whom they are in the process of resurrecting).
"Much of the evidence for the existence of this primitive religion
comes from the many thousands of artifacts uncovered in ceremonial
sites. These sites are so widespread that they seem to confirm the
notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous throughout much of the
world until the antecedents of today's religions - most of which still
have a distinctly masculine orientation - swept out of India and the
Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige
of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity" - Al Gore
(Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the Human Spirit)
Now you see why so many pagans and atheists vehemently support the
the ACLU. They are slowly becoming brainwashed into thinking that
their goddess gave birth to the earliest of religions.... (and even to
Jesus himself)...
Lovelock again:
"Gaia is Mother Earth. Gaia is immortal. She is the eternal source of
life. She is certainly the mother of us all, including Jesus" - James
Lovelock (Science and Christian Belief, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 6)
Jd
.

User: "Jd"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	16 Aug 2004 05:28:05 PM

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

If you'll recall, I openly supported Mr. Knights rights to express his
views while you and Bob unmercilessly didn't. And anyone who was here
then will agree.

The nincompoop has every right to express its views, and we have every
right to respond to them "unmercilessly" (think about that word
again!), or in some other way.

Not if you're going to "love thine enemy"

What enemy?

and "turn the other cheek".

The nincompoop can kiss my right buttock instead of my left, if it
chooses.

lojbab

Only fags do stuff like that.
Jd
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	15 Aug 2004 02:11:25 AM

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:15:11 -0500, Jd wrote
(in article <a4kth0h9tnkm2sa5a0dk553d0d3pgnstsf@4ax.com>):

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

If you'll recall, I openly supported Mr. Knights rights to express his
views while you and Bob unmercilessly didn't. And anyone who was here
then will agree.

The nincompoop has every right to express its views, and we have every
right to respond to them "unmercilessly" (think about that word
again!), or in some other way.

lojbab

Not if you're going to "love thine enemy" and "turn the other cheek".

Jd

You mean do the "Sodom thing": love
thine enemy and turn the other cheek?
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer
that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H. L. Mencken
.

User: "Abner Mintz"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	11 Aug 2004 07:25:57 AM

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Not trying to. It only took 1 dictator to kill 6 million Jews.

It took considerably more than that - if it had really been just
one dictator, I doubt he could have gotten very far. It took
1 dictator and millions of dedicated followers who believed his
rubbish because it reinforced their existing prejudices
to kill 6 million Jews.
.

User: "Jd"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	13 Aug 2004 10:19:53 PM

Abner Mintz wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Not trying to. It only took 1 dictator to kill 6 million Jews.

They didn't have to be dedicated. They had to have the moral segment
of their brains numbed. Then they just "followed orders".
TRUTH makes you free. Our immoral society is squelching truth and
consequently is going into mental slavery and the "follow orders"
mode... as does everyone with numbed brains.
The more one sins, the more of a slave he/she becomes.
Don't you think that is why so many US citizens are brawling for
someone to give them "rights"?
Our system was designed to "secure" the rights of citizens so sinners
couldn't get into governent and take them away.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and SECURE the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America". (Preamble, U.S.
Constitution) [emphasis added]
Jd
.

User: "Abner Mintz"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	14 Aug 2004 12:52:09 AM

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Not trying to. It only took 1 dictator to kill 6 million Jews.

Abner Mintz wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Oddly enough, 'our immoral society' is as moral as any
through history - it certainly is hard to find a society
anywhere through history which is better. Can you give
an example of a more moral society?
Our society isn't perfect - witness, for instance, the
recent torture of Iraqi prisoners - but in general we do
a fair job on the moral front IMO.

The more one sins, the more of a slave he/she becomes.
Don't you think that is why so many US citizens are brawling for
someone to give them "rights"?

No - I think people brawl for rights when 1) someone else
is trying to take their rights away or 2) they see others
being treated better than themselves and want equality.
As for sin, Christians seem no more immune to it than
non-Christians - otherwise they would be morally superior
to non-Christians, and I really see no sign of that.
The 'morally numb' soldiers that exterminated so many
Jews were, after all, Christians in good standing -
attending church, praying to their God, and convinced that
they were doing their Lord's work. This didn't prevent their
moral numbness, and it had nothing to do with science or
atheism. Of course, science or atheism also don't prevent
moral numbness. It's a shame that people haven't yet found
a reliable way to do so.
.

User: "Jd"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	14 Aug 2004 10:15:10 PM

Abner Mintz wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Not trying to. It only took 1 dictator to kill 6 million Jews.

Abner Mintz wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

No, because there never has been a "moral society". The closest thing
would be what you might call a "sub-culture"... and that would be the
remnant of Israel which has been around ever since the EXODUS at
least.

Our society isn't perfect - witness, for instance, the
recent torture of Iraqi prisoners - but in general we do
a fair job on the moral front IMO.

The call is to perfection.
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect." - Jesus (Matthew 5:48)
"We" want to see ourselves as doing a "fair job"... and "we" do since
our goals are not perfection. And the bar keeps getting lower and
lower until finally, here in the last days, almost anyone can jump it
no matter what type of pervert they may be. If we keep going down
this path, daughters will be marrying mothers and and the Supreme
Court will OK it.

The more one sins, the more of a slave he/she becomes.
Don't you think that is why so many US citizens are brawling for
someone to give them "rights"?

Well, a true Christian can receive forgivness from God if he/she
happens to sin.

The 'morally numb' soldiers that exterminated so many
Jews were, after all, Christians in good standing -

You're trying to tell me that God gave those ~christians the go ahead?

attending church, praying to their God, and convinced that
they were doing their Lord's work. This didn't prevent their
moral numbness, and it had nothing to do with science or
atheism.

A true Christian isn't "morally numb".

Of course, science or atheism also don't prevent
moral numbness. It's a shame that people haven't yet found
a reliable way to do so.

Science or atheism can't since it doesn't and can't address deity.
And you have shown the correct conclusion in admitting that mere
humans can't on their own power.
Jd
"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that
breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29)
.

User: "Abner Mintz"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	15 Aug 2004 09:13:24 AM

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Abner Mintz wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

No, because there never has been a "moral society".

There has never been any society more moral than ours? That
contradicts what you said below in two places.

The closest thing would be what you might call a "sub-culture"
... and that would be the remnant of Israel which has been
around ever since the EXODUS at least.

Well, you might actually have a point here - Jews have
lower divorce rates and murder rates than Christians, so
you might be able to make a case for them being more moral
than Christians ... of course, the same is true of atheists,
so can you explain why atheists would be less 'morally numb'
than Christians?

Our society isn't perfect - witness, for instance, the
recent torture of Iraqi prisoners - but in general we do
a fair job on the moral front IMO.

The call is to perfection.

But the discussion was about more or less moral, not moral
perfection; you cannot defend your claim that we are
getting morally *worse* just by pointing out that we are
not perfect. To show that we are morally worse, you have
to actually show that, for instance, our getting rid of
slavery, trying to give equal rights to people of all races
and religions, striving for rule of law instead of arbitrary
rulership, trying to keep people from starving, etc. are
moral flaws. I don't think you can do it - I don't think
you can give *concrete* evidence that our society is more
flawed than previous ones. So far, all you do is seem to
complain (as people did throughout history) that things
are worse now. Are we *really* worse off now than we
were when, for instance, people could be arrested or
lynched for dating or marrying people of a different race?
When Jews had to hide their religion from their neighbors?
When minority religions had to pay tithes to the majority
one? When women could be raped by their husbands and had
no legal recourse?

"We" want to see ourselves as doing a "fair job"... and "we" do since
our goals are not perfection. And the bar keeps getting lower and
lower until finally, here in the last days, almost anyone can jump it
no matter what type of pervert they may be.

And here you contradict again what you said before when you
said you could not give any examples of societies more moral
than our own. If in these 'last days', society was really
perverted and morally numb, you should be able to give examples
of every society through history being better than our own;
instead, you admitted you could not (except for taking a
possible flyer on the Jews, which I am willing to discuss if
you're willing to specify which group of Jews you think is
morally superior to us and why).

The more one sins, the more of a slave he/she becomes.
Don't you think that is why so many US citizens are brawling for
someone to give them "rights"?

Well, a true Christian can receive forgivness from God if he/she
happens to sin.

Debatable - but whether or not it is true, it has absolutely
no effect on what you were just saying. 'The more one sins,
the more of a slave he/she becomes' says nothing about
forgiveness. A Christian who sins and then believes he/she
is forgiven is at least as corrupt as a non-Christian who
sins. One doesn't become less corrupt by being 'forgiven';
you can't get back your virginity from the entire football
team and their mascot, stop being a murderer, erase having
raped someone, etc. - being 'forgiven' just means that you
believe that God won't judge you for it, it doesn't undo the
past.

The 'morally numb' soldiers that exterminated so many
Jews were, after all, Christians in good standing -

You're trying to tell me that God gave those ~christians the go ahead?

Of course not, as I don't believe in any gods. I specified
exactly what that meant in the second half of the sentence:

attending church, praying to their God, and convinced that
they were doing their Lord's work. This didn't prevent their
moral numbness, and it had nothing to do with science or
atheism.

A true Christian isn't "morally numb".

In that case, true Christians aren't any more common among
Christians than they are among non-Christians, as Christians
as a group show no signs of moral superiority to non-Christians.
If they were as common as a few percent, they'd have *some*
sort of statistical effect - but they don't seem to improve
y'all on the average; if anything, y'all are worse (probably
because you tend to believe that you can get painlessly forgiven
for the bad things you do, and so have less reason to refrain
from doing them than someone who has to live with it and try to
undo it the hard way if possible).
Around how many true Christians are there in the US, for example?
100? 50? 10? 1 (you, presumably)? Or are even you a true
Christian? If we look through your history and find you have
done something immoral, can we presume that you're not a true
Christian, since you were morally numb?

Of course, science or atheism also don't prevent
moral numbness. It's a shame that people haven't yet found
a reliable way to do so.

Science or atheism can't since it doesn't and can't address deity.
And you have shown the correct conclusion in admitting that mere
humans can't on their own power.

Unfortunately, humans can't do so by appealing to a higher power
either - if so, the humans that did so would be more moral, and
they aren't. For instance, the murder rate is remarkably even
across all religions and all non-religious groups. If your
appeals to a higher power had any effect, we'd assume that you'd
murder less than, for instance, atheists ... but the actual
evidence is that, if there is any difference, it is that atheists
murder *less*, not more (here in the US, at least, where we
have some pretty good statistics collected).
Individuals do seem to be able to overcome moral numbness, to
find a moral core - but there doesn't seem to be any correlation
of *who* succeeds in doing so with any religion, with any science,
or with atheism. It seems to be a matter of individual character
- if anything, it *is* a matter of doing so on our own power, as
the various philosophies and religions have *all* failed us. And
I will continue to stand by that conclusion until some group
actually manages to give up murder, rape, etc. instead of making
grandious claims and then acting just like every other group.
.

User: "Jd"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	16 Aug 2004 05:28:05 PM

Abner Mintz wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Abner Mintz wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

No, because there never has been a "moral society".

There has never been any society more moral than ours? That
contradicts what you said below in two places.

The closest thing would be what you might call a "sub-culture"
... and that would be the remnant of Israel which has been
around ever since the EXODUS at least.

I'd have to look up some stats first.

Our society isn't perfect - witness, for instance, the
recent torture of Iraqi prisoners - but in general we do
a fair job on the moral front IMO.

The call is to perfection.

Anyone can prove it. All they have to do is look out their window.
I never saw bars on windows when I was a kid. Nor did we lock our
doors at night. It's even getting so bad that I lock my car up
sometimes when I park in town in (large parking areas).

I get the feeling you wouldn't agree no matter how much evidence I
showed you. Especially since you discount the Bible so easily. If
you don't like God you shouldn't like me either, which is perfectly
legal here in the U.S.
Jd
.

User: "Abner Mintz"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	16 Aug 2004 07:11:08 PM

Abner Mintz wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

I'd have to look up some stats first.

Feel free. Since you are (presumably) a Christian, a good
place for you to start might be with the Barna group, since
they are an explicitly Christian organization.

Bars on windows are hardly new - they've been common in urban
areas for some time. Of course, as our population grows, more
and more areas are urban or close enough to urban areas to
need bars on windows ... Though, oddly enough, my suburban
neighborhood doesn't have a single window with bars on it.
Does this disprove your thesis, since looking out my window
didn't result in the data you claimed?
*Individual* results don't matter much for telling you much
about society as a whole, since they vary so highly from
person to person. It's the overall data for the society that
matters - and every bit of data I've seen indicates no major
shifts in human nature as the years go on. Some things get
better, some things get worse, but overall ... about the same.
As an example of this: there are more violent crimes now than
there were 50 years ago ... An oversimplified analysis of this
would indicate that people are more violent. of course, there
are more people to commit violent crimes than there were fifty
years ago. If you look at the *rate* of crimes, the increase
disappears to the limit of our knowledge based on our records.
An amusing side-note. During prohibition, the *official*
consumption of beer in the U.S. dropped like a rock. However,
we have data that allows us a rough estimate of the unofficial
consumption of beer as well ... when you add the official and
unofficial consumption together, the per-person consumption of
beer before, during, and after prohibition was almost constant
- making it illegal and lecturing on the evils of it had no
effect whatsoever. And the rate hasn't changed much since ...

"We" want to see ourselves as doing a "fair job"... and "we" do

since

our goals are not perfection. And the bar keeps getting lower and
lower until finally, here in the last days, almost anyone can jump

no matter what type of pervert they may be.

How would you know that I wouldn't agree if confronted with evidence?
You haven't tried any evidence yet - just anecdote and assertion.
I'm sorry that you equate 'doesn't agree with Jd' with 'discount
the Bible so easily' (which is itself odd, since you weren't
using Biblical arguments, you were using 'Jd says' arguments; my
coming to reject the Bible was actually a long process involving
years of study and soul-searching, your claims to know otherwise
notwithstanding) and that you equate that with 'don't like God'
(actually, having never met God, I don't know if I would like him
or not - I don't know if he's mythical or not, but I'm certainly
not going to claim to like him or dislike him based on what some
people claim about him or claim to be doing in his name). I have
no reason to think any hypothetical real-world god would be
anything like what you believe in and try to propagate.
I have a suspicion that if there is a god, he's little or nothing
like what the theists claim - their gods are all mirrors of
themselves, and for all they claim to be made in his image, I
sincerely doubt that a god would be bound by all our human flaws
- and the worshippers, for all their claims of how great their
god is, inevitably describe a being no better than us, and often
worse, just with incredible cosmic power to back up its human
flaws.
.

User: "Jd"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	18 Aug 2004 09:13:16 PM

Abner Mintz wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

I'd have to look up some stats first.

Feel free. Since you are (presumably) a Christian, a good
place for you to start might be with the Barna group, since
they are an explicitly Christian organization.

Let me get this straight, you want me to prove that the best known
Christian nation in the world is less moral than it was at it's
inception?

No, it proves "white flight".

*Individual* results don't matter much for telling you much
about society as a whole, since they vary so highly from
person to person. It's the overall data for the society that
matters - and every bit of data I've seen indicates no major
shifts in human nature as the years go on. Some things get
better, some things get worse, but overall ... about the same.

As an example of this: there are more violent crimes now than
there were 50 years ago ... An oversimplified analysis of this
would indicate that people are more violent. of course, there
are more people to commit violent crimes than there were fifty
years ago. If you look at the *rate* of crimes, the increase
disappears to the limit of our knowledge based on our records.

An amusing side-note. During prohibition, the *official*
consumption of beer in the U.S. dropped like a rock. However,
we have data that allows us a rough estimate of the unofficial
consumption of beer as well ... when you add the official and
unofficial consumption together, the per-person consumption of
beer before, during, and after prohibition was almost constant
- making it illegal and lecturing on the evils of it had no
effect whatsoever. And the rate hasn't changed much since ...

They took God out of schools and kids are now killing each other.

"We" want to see ourselves as doing a "fair job"... and "we" do

since

our goals are not perfection. And the bar keeps getting lower and
lower until finally, here in the last days, almost anyone can jump

no matter what type of pervert they may be.

Then I have no reason to trust your interpretation of morality data,
stats and\or figures. Reason being that you more than likely will
eventually get around to trying to get me to compromise to some
godless leftist view on the moral issues of today (which won't
happen).
It's sorta sad in a way that it's come to this but the time for talk
may very well be over.
The total disrespect to God, Law, and moral values you guys portray
and insinuate is quickly becoming unacceptable and completely absurd.
The whole world of leftism is becoming nothing more than a bunch of
hypocritical thugs in my view.
And mind you, I'm not requiring you to agree with me or comprise your
values in any way. You say what you want.... I say what I want.

I have a suspicion that if there is a god, he's little or nothing
like what the theists claim - their gods are all mirrors of
themselves, and for all they claim to be made in his image, I
sincerely doubt that a god would be bound by all our human flaws
- and the worshippers, for all their claims of how great their
god is, inevitably describe a being no better than us, and often
worse, just with incredible cosmic power to back up its human
flaws.

I would expect you to believe something like that having been
brainwashed by science into thinking that you're no more than an
advanced ape, and brainwashed into thinking that you're a bit more
highly evolved than negroes (if you're white).
Science points to skin color:
"Of all the differences between the races of man, the colour of the
skin is the most conspicuous and one of the best marked." Charles
Darwin (Descent of Man Chapter VII - On the Races of Man)
Law says skin color is irrelevant:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness." (Declaration of Independence)
Those are underlying fundamentals of 2 differing agencies.
Law trumps science for a good reason.
And Law is based on a "Lawgiver" for good reasons.
Faith OTOH is independeant of both, for better reasons.
Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight
of God, it is evident: for, "The just shall live by faith".
Some of these other folks here may want to post volumes of statistics
to bolster some point or another, but not me. At least not for the
time being anyway.
Three years later, the 911 commission has shown that Congress has yet
to act.
Your dreams of a utopia are merely a mirage, and are subject to
madmen.
Meanwhile, the meek inherit the earth and the just operate in the
kingdom of God.
The time for political and religious games ended 2000 years ago.
Mark 1:15 "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand:
repent ye, and believe the gospel." - Jesus Christ
I have done so and can personally testify that that is TRUTH.
I am living evidence of the existence of God, the God of Israel.
"I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no
strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord,
that I am God." (Isaiah 43:12)
You cannot say that you've never heard.
I am also the devils worst nightmare. Now, he will work on you in
ways you've never known.
Good luck (for that may be all you have, having secummed to the
mid-numbing effect of the lifeless words of shrinks and wizards),
Jd
"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that
breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29)
.

User: "Abner Mintz"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	18 Aug 2004 10:47:01 PM

Abner Mintz wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

I'd have to look up some stats first.

Abner Mintz wrote:

Feel free. Since you are (presumably) a Christian, a good
place for you to start might be with the Barna group, since
they are an explicitly Christian organization.

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Let me get this straight, you want me to prove that the best known
Christian nation in the world is less moral than it was at it's
inception?

I'd settle for evidence (not just raw assertion) that societies
are worse now than they were in the past. If you want to use
the U.S. as a test case, feel free ...
Have you got anything better than 'look out your window'? Because
looking out my window didn't support your case at all.

They took God out of schools and kids are now killing each other.

And kids never killed anyone back in, say, 1940? Can you support
this claim at all - or are you just assuming that they didn't ...
For that matter, can you support in any way your claim that this
presumed change was caused by 'they took God out of schools' (which
I take it is your version of no longer forcing prayer).
Every bit of data I've seen supports the idea that such rates
are fairly constant. It's interesting what researchers have
found looking through the old records, as spotty as they were
- records of gangs of 12-year-olds mugging and murdering in
old New York, for instance, in the early 19th century. Was
that also caused by 'they' removing God from schools? :)

I invited you to look at the evidence yourself, and even encouraged
you to look at what was found by a conservative Christian organization.
If your excuse for not looking at anything which would confront your
worldview is that anything that disagrees with it is godless leftist
stuff, I guess there's nothing left to say - you're invulnerable to
any confrontation with reality.

It's sorta sad in a way that it's come to this but the time for talk
may very well be over.

Agreed. My standard is evidence, your standard is the Bible,
and since they disagree, we have no common place to start.

The total disrespect to God, Law, and moral values you guys portray
and insinuate is quickly becoming unacceptable and completely absurd.

Actually, I have quite a lot of respect for law and moral values.
I don't have much respect for people like you who lie about
me as you just did, however. You aren't up to my moral standards.

The whole world of leftism is becoming nothing more than a bunch of
hypocritical thugs in my view.

And you assume that I'm a 'leftist' because I don't agree with you?

Again you lie about my views, and the views of those like me;
I neither hold racist views nor have said anything to give you
any reason to think I do.
I don't think I care to soil myself with your presence any more.
Goodbye.

.

User: "Jd"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	19 Aug 2004 07:14:39 PM

Abner Mintz wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

I'd have to look up some stats first.

Abner Mintz wrote:

Feel free. Since you are (presumably) a Christian, a good
place for you to start might be with the Barna group, since
they are an explicitly Christian organization.

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Let me get this straight, you want me to prove that the best known
Christian nation in the world is less moral than it was at it's
inception?

I'd settle for evidence (not just raw assertion) that societies
are worse now than they were in the past.

OK.
2Timothy 3:13 "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and
worse, deceiving, and being deceived."
Jd
.

User: "Abner Mintz"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	19 Aug 2004 10:50:53 PM

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Let me get this straight, you want me to prove that the best known
Christian nation in the world is less moral than it was at it's
inception?

Abner Mintz wrote:

I'd settle for evidence (not just raw assertion) that societies
are worse now than they were in the past.

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

2Timothy 3:13 "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and
worse, deceiving, and being deceived."

Lack of evidence noted.
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: How tires and gasoline became a "religion"	19 Aug 2004 08:42:14 PM

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:14:39 -0500, Jd wrote
(in article <mvhai016vrqs0sub8v8knnbbkkadqqui56@4ax.com>):

Abner Mintz wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

I'd have to look up some stats first.

Abner Mintz wrote:

Feel free. Since you are (presumably) a Christian, a good
place for you to start might be with the Barna group, since
they are an explicitly Christian organization.

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Let me get this straight, you want me to prove that the best known
Christian nation in the world is less moral than it was at it's
inception?

I'd settle for evidence (not just raw assertion) that societies
are worse now than they were in the past.

OK.

2Timothy 3:13 "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and
worse, deceiving, and being deceived."

Jd

Midlife 3:23 And thou shall, verily, raise up thy ancerstors high and
bring them to the place of the meeting of the path and the transgoer.
Midlife 3:24 And after thy art raised up, thy shall have a chariot of
many horses that shall propel thee and thyin throughout the paths and
alleys and, hence, onto fields of asphalt that thou chariot may travel
henceforth and goeth fasteth.
Midlife 3:25 And after many moons shalt be passed, verily, thou may
take thy chariot into the smith of iron and there be told that thou
shouldst have purchased an extended warranty and thou artst up the
creek not in possession of a paddle.
Midlife 3:26 And it was so and truly didst the owner weep tears of
rage and words too profane.
Gray
.

User: "Jd"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	19 Aug 2004 07:14:41 PM

Abner Mintz wrote:

And you assume that I'm a 'leftist' because I don't agree with you?

Again you lie about my views, and the views of those like me;
I neither hold racist views nor have said anything to give you
any reason to think I do.

I don't think I care to soil myself with your presence any more.
Goodbye.

Thine "holier than thou" attitude is noted.
Jd
Isaiah 65:2-4 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a
rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after
their own thoughts; A people that provoketh me to anger continually to
my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars
of brick; Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments,
which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their
vessels...
Isaiah 65:5 Which say, "Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for
I am holier than thou". These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that
burneth all the day.
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became "science and religion"	19 Aug 2004 08:46:23 PM

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:14:41 -0500, Jd wrote
(in article <iqiai056779uq5l1sc2u6hqbi62050sv63@4ax.com>):

Thine "holier than thou" attitude is noted.

Jd

Isaiah 65:2-4 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a
rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after
their own thoughts; A people that provoketh me to anger continually to
my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars
of brick; Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments,
which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their
vessels...

Isaiah 65:5 Which say, "Stand by thyself,

Your lack of the true religion is noted.
The proper translation of Isaiah 65:5 actually
starts off with, "Stand by your man".
Gray

come not near to me; for
I am holier than thou". These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that
burneth all the day.

User: "Jd"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	19 Aug 2004 07:14:40 PM

Abner Mintz wrote:

Have you got anything better than 'look out your window'? Because
looking out my window didn't support your case at all.

They took God out of schools and kids are now killing each other.

And kids never killed anyone back in, say, 1940? Can you support
this claim at all - or are you just assuming that they didn't ...
For that matter, can you support in any way your claim that this
presumed change was caused by 'they took God out of schools' (which
I take it is your version of no longer forcing prayer).

Every bit of data I've seen supports the idea that such rates
are fairly constant. It's interesting what researchers have
found looking through the old records, as spotty as they were
- records of gangs of 12-year-olds mugging and murdering in
old New York, for instance, in the early 19th century. Was
that also caused by 'they' removing God from schools? :)

Look, America is split between liberalism and conservatism. Face it.

And having denied God, how do you claim to have any grasp whatsoever
on reality?

It's sorta sad in a way that it's come to this but the time for talk
may very well be over.

Agreed. My standard is evidence, your standard is the Bible,
and since they disagree, we have no common place to start.

Agreed. But now what? Shall we fling lead?

The total disrespect to God, Law, and moral values you guys portray
and insinuate is quickly becoming unacceptable and completely absurd.

Actually, I have quite a lot of respect for law and moral values.
I don't have much respect for people like you who lie about
me as you just did, however. You aren't up to my moral standards.

Nor you, mine. Now what? Shall we fling lead?

The whole world of leftism is becoming nothing more than a bunch of
hypocritical thugs in my view.

And you assume that I'm a 'leftist' because I don't agree with you?

Assume whatever you want. However, don't expect me to take your view
of reality seriously. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder whether or not
you've been enlisted by Al-Quaida to undermine the principles of
freedom we Americans so dearly cherish. Osama would love you if he
ever got to read your writings since they undermine the principles of
freedom.
Jd
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	20 Aug 2004 01:58:07 PM

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Look, America is split between liberalism and conservatism. Face it.

Ah, but what is "conservatism"? If it is what you believe, then, the
split is hardly even:
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=154

The research indicated that everyone has a worldview, but relatively
few people have a biblical worldview - even among devoutly religious
people. The survey discovered that only 9% of born again Christians

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

have such a perspective on life. The numbers were even lower among

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

other religious classifications: Protestants (7%), adults who attend
mainline Protestant churches (2%) and Catholics (less than one-half
of 1%). The denominations that produced the highest proportions of
adults with a biblical worldview were non-denominational Protestant
churches (13%), Pentecostal churches (10%) and Baptist churches (8%).

....

For the purposes of the research, a biblical worldview was defined as
believing that absolute moral truths exist; that such truth is
defined by the Bible; and firm belief in six specific religious
views. Those views were that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God
is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He
stills rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be
earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share
their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in
all of its teachings.

It's sorta sad in a way that it's come to this but the time for talk
may very well be over.

Agreed. My standard is evidence, your standard is the Bible,
and since they disagree, we have no common place to start.

Agreed. But now what? Shall we fling lead?

Just insults. You aren't worth the price of lead.

The whole world of leftism is becoming nothing more than a bunch of
hypocritical thugs in my view.

And you assume that I'm a 'leftist' because I don't agree with you?

Assume whatever you want. However, don't expect me to take your view
of reality seriously.

But you expect us to take YOUR view of reality seriously?
lojbab
--
lojbab

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.

User: "Abner Mintz"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	19 Aug 2004 10:50:56 PM

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

It's sorta sad in a way that it's come to this but the time for talk
may very well be over.

Abner Mintz wrote:

Agreed. My standard is evidence, your standard is the Bible,
and since they disagree, we have no common place to start.

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Agreed. But now what? Shall we fling lead?

Your eagerness for violence is noted, but I don't share it
- unless you start it, you have nothing to fear from me.

The whole world of leftism is becoming nothing more than a bunch of
hypocritical thugs in my view.

And you assume that I'm a 'leftist' because I don't agree with you?

*laughs* And now you claim that everyone who disagrees with you
is against freedom and a tool of Osama bin Laden.
I no longer think you are slimy - I now think you're a troll, as
I can't imagine anyone seriously taking that position on top
of all the rest.
Congrats, you successfully trolled me; you fooled me into thinking
you were serious.
.

User: "Jd"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	24 Aug 2004 06:52:28 PM

Abner Mintz wrote:

Congrats, you successfully trolled me; you fooled me into thinking
you were serious.

I retain the right to express my sense of humor at any time. Everyone
would agree that these discussions border on the absurd at on moment
or another.
It's just that my moments are unsycronized with all these pagans here.
:)
Jd
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	19 Aug 2004 03:01:01 PM

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 03:47:01 +0000 in episode
<1gippkc.tdneib1j6548mN

(Abner
Mintz)bnermintz@earthlink.net> we saw our hero

(Abner Mintz):

Abner Mintz wrote:

Well, you might actually have a point here - Jews have
lower divorce rates and murder rates than Christians, so you might be
able to make a case for them being more moral than Christians ... of
course, the same is true of atheists, so can you explain why atheists
would be less 'morally numb' than Christians?

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

They took God out of schools and kids are now killing each other.

And kids never killed anyone back in, say, 1940? Can you support
this claim at all - or are you just assuming that they didn't ... For
that matter, can you support in any way your claim that this presumed
change was caused by 'they took God out of schools' (which I take it is
your version of no longer forcing prayer).

Every bit of data I've seen supports the idea that such rates
are fairly constant. It's interesting what researchers have found
looking through the old records, as spotty as they were - records of
gangs of 12-year-olds mugging and murdering in old New York, for
instance, in the early 19th century. Was that also caused by 'they'
removing God from schools? :)

Yeah. Kids are probably safer at schools now that at any other period in
the nation's history...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	19 Aug 2004 09:09:01 AM

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

I'd have to look up some stats first.

Feel free. Since you are (presumably) a Christian, a good
place for you to start might be with the Barna group, since
they are an explicitly Christian organization.

Let me get this straight, you want me to prove that the best known
Christian nation in the world is less moral than it was at it's
inception?

No one is discussing the morality of Vatican City, the best known
Christian nation in the world.
No one is comparing the morality of the secular nation known as the
United States with the morality of its inception (I think you would be
surprised how "immoral" those times were. I was just reading how Ben
Franklin dealt with several instances of guests and customers stealing
from him).
The question being addressed was whether Christians or atheists were
more "morally numb", and a specific suggestion was made that you
compare Christian divorce rates to those of non-Christians, as
promulgated by a Christian research organization.

No, it proves "white flight".

Wombat.
Your claim is that there were no bars on windows at some point when
you were a kid.
He is observing that his suburban area has no bars, whereas you
claimed your area has bars. Having already established that you don't
live in an urban area (because then you could have claimed that YOUR
urban area did not have bars when you were a kid), we have one area
with bars and one area without bars, which proves nothing except that
you are an idiot (but we already knew that).

They took God out of schools and kids are now killing each other.

God is everywhere. Are you contending that this unspecified "they"
are capable of taking the Omnipotent Deity out of any place?
Murder rates in medieval Europe were far higher than they are today,
and the watchword of the day was "Christendom".

The total disrespect to God, Law, and moral values you guys portray
and insinuate is quickly becoming unacceptable and completely absurd.

They have high respect for moral values and Law. Obviously one cannot
expect an atheist to respect God, since they don't believe in him.
Shall we complain about your total disrespect for the Easter Bunny?

The whole world of leftism is becoming nothing more than a bunch of
hypocritical thugs in my view.

An accusation of hypocrisy from the person who doesn't try to obey the
teachings of Jesus Christ?

Science does not claim that anything is more highly evolved than
anything else. You are no more highly evolved than a housefly, and
you and the housefly are both equally evolved from the pond scum that
gave birth to your ancestors.

Your dreams of a utopia are merely a mirage, and are subject to
madmen.

Meanwhile, the meek inherit the earth and the just operate in the
kingdom of God.

The time for political and religious games ended 2000 years ago.

Mark 1:15 "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand:
repent ye, and believe the gospel." - Jesus Christ

That was less than 2000 years ago, unless you are claiming that Mark
said that (or even that Jesus said that) prior to 4AD.

I am also the devils worst nightmare.

Nightmares are servants of the devil. Thanks for admitting what we've
know for so long - that you hypocristians are the worst of the devil's
servants.
lojbab
--
lojbab

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.

User: "Jd"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	19 Aug 2004 07:14:43 PM

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

I'd have to look up some stats first.

Feel free. Since you are (presumably) a Christian, a good
place for you to start might be with the Barna group, since
they are an explicitly Christian organization.

Let me get this straight, you want me to prove that the best known
Christian nation in the world is less moral than it was at it's
inception?

No one is discussing the morality of Vatican City, the best known
Christian nation in the world.

No one is comparing the morality of the secular nation known as the
United States with the morality of its inception (I think you would be
surprised how "immoral" those times were. I was just reading how Ben
Franklin dealt with several instances of guests and customers stealing
from him).

The question being addressed was whether Christians or atheists were
more "morally numb", and a specific suggestion was made that you
compare Christian divorce rates to those of non-Christians, as
promulgated by a Christian research organization.

No, it proves "white flight".

Wombat.

Your claim is that there were no bars on windows at some point when
you were a kid.

He is observing that his suburban area has no bars, whereas you
claimed your area has bars. Having already established that you don't
live in an urban area (because then you could have claimed that YOUR
urban area did not have bars when you were a kid), we have one area
with bars and one area without bars, which proves nothing except that
you are an idiot (but we already knew that).

They took God out of schools and kids are now killing each other.

God is everywhere. Are you contending that this unspecified "they"
are capable of taking the Omnipotent Deity out of any place?

Murder rates in medieval Europe were far higher than they are today,
and the watchword of the day was "Christendom".

The total disrespect to God, Law, and moral values you guys portray
and insinuate is quickly becoming unacceptable and completely absurd.

The whole world of leftism is becoming nothing more than a bunch of
hypocritical thugs in my view.

An accusation of hypocrisy from the person who doesn't try to obey the
teachings of Jesus Christ?

That was less than 2000 years ago, unless you are claiming that Mark
said that (or even that Jesus said that) prior to 4AD.

I am also the devils worst nightmare.

Nightmares are servants of the devil. Thanks for admitting what we've
know for so long - that you hypocristians are the worst of the devil's
servants.

lojbab

It boils down thusly:
As a Christian, you simply cannot deny the validity of the Biblical
account of creation and at the same time, claim to have a superior
interpretation of currect cultural moral values.
No matter how many big words or fancy sentences you construct, you are
merely a servant of Satan if you deny what is written.
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, "It is written, Man shall
not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of God." - Jesus
You'd be better off refreshing yourself with the old Roman Catholic
arguments against 'sola scriptura' if you're going to hit me with such
nonsense as you've been doing of late.
Jd
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: How science and atheism became a "religion"	20 Aug 2004 02:11:56 PM

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:

Of course I can. Most Christians do precisely that:
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=154

....

The data from the 2003 survey was compared with figures on worldview
possession compiled from Barna Research Group surveys conducted in
2002 in order to assess the reliability of the new data. The 2002
surveys also showed that just 4% of the aggregate population and 9%
of the born again segment had a biblical worldview. Other repeated
measures were compared, producing virtually identical results to the
current measures.

"Born again Christians" were defined in these surveys as people who
said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is
still important in their life today and who also indicated they
believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had
confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.
Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "born again."
Being "born again" is not dependent upon any church or denominational
affiliation or involvement.
No matter how many big words or fancy sentences you construct, you are
merely a servant of Satan if you deny what is written.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=122

Six out of ten Americans (59%) reject the existence of Satan,
indicating that the devil, or Satan, is merely a symbol of evil.
Catholics are much more likely than Protestants to hold this view -
75% compared to 55% - although a majority of both groups concur that
Satan is symbolic.

The rejection of Satan's existence seems to conflict with the fact
that a slight majority (54%) also contends that, "a human being can
be under the control or the influence of spiritual forces such as
demons." People 57 or older were the group most likely to doubt
Satan's existence (64%) and also emerged as those least likely to
accept the notion of demonic influence (39%, compared to 55% among
Baby Busters and 62% of Baby Boomers).
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, "It is written, Man shall
not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of God." - Jesus

You'd be better off refreshing yourself with the old Roman Catholic
arguments against 'sola scriptura' if you're going to hit me with such
nonsense as you've been doing of late.

I'm not Catholic, but I looked, and it IS entertaining:
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/sola.html

Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it
took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of
Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that
Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date,
scores of spurious gospels and "apostolic" writings were floating
around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the "Shepherd"
of Hermas, St. Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth.
Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter
to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Magisterium, guided by
the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.

But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

it originally had. On what basis, then, do they accept the canon of

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

the New Testament? Luther and Calvin were both fuzzy on the subject.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, the so-called
A