http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/ Thu, 09 Sep 2010 04:34:30 -0600 MyBB http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=597 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:30:22 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=597 quite often here and I was just curious as to how many of us have actually read it. Personally I've never read it the whole way through. I read the whole of the New Testament twice (some individual books within it over five times) and I got to about halfway through Psalms in the OT before I quit.

I found it very interesting that my parents and family attributed my apostasy on the lack of study of the Bible while many people here attribute Christians' faith due to lack of study of the Bible. Not to say I disagree with that--the atrocities page on this website even (not counting all the other problems within it) are definitely hard to ignore.]]> quite often here and I was just curious as to how many of us have actually read it. Personally I've never read it the whole way through. I read the whole of the New Testament twice (some individual books within it over five times) and I got to about halfway through Psalms in the OT before I quit.

I found it very interesting that my parents and family attributed my apostasy on the lack of study of the Bible while many people here attribute Christians' faith due to lack of study of the Bible. Not to say I disagree with that--the atrocities page on this website even (not counting all the other problems within it) are definitely hard to ignore.]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=596 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:36:52 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=596 http://www.drdino.com/

Ok first question: Who thinks this site is hilarious?

Second question: is this real? Or is it like the Landover Baptist church (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/) and just a comedy site?]]> http://www.drdino.com/

Ok first question: Who thinks this site is hilarious?

Second question: is this real? Or is it like the Landover Baptist church (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/) and just a comedy site?]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=595 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:04:57 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=595
Ten reasons why atheism is superior to religion
by Nat Queen

1. Which religion?
There are many different religions, each claiming to be the 'true' one, with the obvious implication that all the others are false. Most religions even include many different sects with mutually incompatible doctrines. Each religion is defended by its followers just as ardently as all the others. Obviously they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong! It is well known that young children raised in a family of any particular religion almost invariably end up adhering to that religion. Such indoctrination is a form of child abuse. If the same children were raised in different families, the results would undoubtedly be different. Thus, the particular religion adopted by most individuals is purely an accident of birth. Even if the doctrines of one particular religious sect were correct, all the others would be wrong. It follows logically that any person's religion is almost certainly not the true one. In the absence of objective evidence, it is more rational to reject all religions than to adopt one at random. If God existed, he/she/it might not approve of people following a false religion!

[Note. Since all religions have different ideas about their god(s), for simplicity in what follows we shall refer to all such gods generically as 'God', using the personal pronoun 'he' for definiteness.]

2. Where is the evidence?
There is not a shred of evidence in favour of any religion. Ancient books written at a time when people had little scientific understanding of the natural world, with no independent evidence to back up their claims, are unworthy of serious consideration, even if millions of people revere them. There are just as many people who follow other superstitions which the rest of the world would regard as completely unfounded and even laughable. The ancient Greek and Roman gods were based on time-honoured beliefs and customs followed fervently by innumerable people. Why should the modern ideas of God be any better? Logically, there is no difference - there is simply no evidence. Religious apologists, who have no rational arguments to support their beliefs, often challenge atheists to prove that there is no God. Obviously, it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God, just as no one can prove the non-existence of the tooth fairy, unicorns, or other imaginary beings. If someone claims that some improbable entity exists, the onus is on that person to provide evidence. Belief in things for which there is no objective evidence deserves only ridicule, not respect.

3. God is a despicable evil monster
Where is the great compassionate God on which most modern religions are based? If such a God really cared about the people of the world and were as powerful as modern religions claim, he could certainly make himself known to everyone in an unmistakable manner, thus dispelling doubt and at the same time revealing which religion, if any, is the true one. Is he ashamed to show himself? Where was this God during the Holocaust and other genocidal massacres throughout history, not to mention countless natural disasters causing untold suffering among the innocent? Was he asleep? Away on holiday? Simply enjoying the show because he's a sadist? Too bored by it all to bother to intervene? Punishing good and bad people alike in revenge for some people's misdemeanours? Such a callous, vengeful and spiteful God would be beneath contempt, more evil than Hitler. But of course there's no rational reason to think that God exists.

4. Why bother?
It is ridiculous to imagine that a God having the character claimed by most modern religions would really be so selfish or egoistic as to demand or even expect that people would pay constant homage to him. Would he even care that intelligent people didn't believe in him in the absence of any verifiable evidence? In fact, to a being that created the entire universe, the whole human population would hardly be noticeable! On a cosmic scale there is nothing 'special' about our planet. The Earth revolves around the Sun, which is a fairly average star at an outer extremity of the Milky Way galaxy containing many billions of other stars, many with their own planets, and there are 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. Scientists consider it likely that countless other planets could harbour life. If a super-intelligent being could observe the entire universe, the tiny speck of human population on Earth would be of no more significance than the ants in a particular garden would be to any one of us. Since there is no evidence that God ever interacts with the world, why would he have any interest in the strange rituals of modern religions?

5. Religion is a waste of time and energy
Think of all the time and energy expended by religious people preaching, praying, singing hymns, chanting, mumbling, bowing, kneeling, genuflecting, making unnatural movements of the hands, donning religious garments or amulets, fasting, visiting shrines or 'holy' men, making religious pilgrimages, performing circumambulatory rituals, etc. There is no evidence that any of these activities ever produce positive results. Indeed, there have been numerous incidents when natural disasters or brutal murders occurred while large congregations were attending religious services in churches or temples. Imagine how much could be achieved if all the time, energy and resources devoted to meaningless religious rituals could be diverted to productive purposes!

6. There is no need for the God hypothesis
The ancients invented gods to account for natural phenomena which they could not explain in any other way - lightening and thunder, volcanos, weather and climatic patterns, floods, plagues, the apparent motions of celestial bodies in the sky, etc. Nowadays, every one of these natural phenomena is understood by science. The general principles of Darwinian evolution account for the great diversity of life on Earth and explain convincingly how complex life forms, including the human species, evolved from more primitive life, and indeed there is increasingly abundant evidence for this. Modern cosmology enables us to understand how naturally occurring physical processes lead to the formation of stars and planets like our Earth. There is no need to invoke supernatural explanations for any known phenomena. Physicists now even have plausible theories for the origin of the universe itself. Even though many of the details remain uncertain, the fact that modern science offers possible natural physical explanations of all known phenomena means that God is redundant. The "God of the gaps" is dead!

7. The God hypothesis raises more questions than it answers
Religious apologists often say that God, as a creator, provides a simple explanation of why we are here, and that it even explains the origin of the universe, as a 'first cause'. Exactly the opposite is true - it explains nothing! A God who designed all observable entities, including the many complex forms of life, would have to be an even more advanced being. Who or what created that God? This merely leads to an infinite regress. The answer that God always existed is absurd. What did he do for all eternity until he finally decided for some reason that it would be a good idea to create the universe? The alternative hypothesis that God just suddenly sprang into existence is equally absurd. The nature of the world clearly contradicts the character of the God of modern religions. If God is infinitely good, omniscient and omnipotent, why is his creation so imperfect that it produces constant natural disasters and dreadful diseases resulting in indiscriminate suffering, even among the most devout or innocent people? The cliché "God works in mysterious ways" is merely a cop-out.

8. Religion is a source of evil
Throughout history, religious fanatics have waged holy wars and crusades, plundered, tortured and murdered 'heretics' and 'infidels' simply because they had different beliefs. Hitler, who was privately a committed Catholic, tried to annihilate the Jews. The Jewish state of Israel imposes apartheid policies on its Arab inhabitants. Sunni and Shia Muslims kill each other indiscriminately in Iraq. Tensions between Hindus and Muslims accompanying the creation of Pakistan by the partition of India led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. Bloody conflicts between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland continued for decades. The Catholic church has never apologised for its close links with Nazi regimes in Europe. The Pope's bigoted stance on birth control and abortion is responsible for untold suffering and deaths. Some Muslim countries practise barbaric punishments, such as beheading or stoning to death, in the name of religion. Various religions preach genital mutilation, inhumane methods of slaughtering animals, etc. Religion fills some people with such hate for others that they become suicide bombers. The list of atrocities and crimes against humanity due to religion is endless. Defenders of religion like to say that all these things are not in keeping with the spirit of their religion. But the 'holy' books on which their religions are based are no better. Anyone who peruses the Bible attentively can read that God has sent plagues, ordered murders and genocide, commanded human sacrifice, sanctioned slavery, etc. The Qur'an, just as viciously, promotes looting, torture, rape and murder.

9. Religion is dehumanising
Religious people follow various dogmas unthinkingly and are taught not to question the unsubstantiated claims of their religious leaders. In contrast, atheists are more likely to have an inquisitive mind, to think for themselves, and to form beliefs based solely on the weight of evidence. A scientific understanding of natural physical and biological phenomena is far more awe-inspiring than a naive belief that God is responsible for everything. How can anyone fail to be impressed by modern cosmology, which explains the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, by Darwinian evolution, which accounts for the amazing diversity and adaptation of life, by modern biology, which explains how cells divide and organisms function, or by quantum mechanics, which governs the structure of the atom? Atheism is also superior in the sphere of morality. It is far more noble for people to do things because they feel that their actions are right than to obey religious rules based on the threat that some invisible vindictive being is watching their every move. Rational people are masters over their own lives, not slaves to serve some non-existent God. Religion is an insult to human dignity.

10. Religion impedes progress
Nearly all religions teach their followers to accept their dogmas unquestioningly, and this inhibits free and original thought and innovation. Examples abound throughout history, up to the present day. A good example is provided by the Catholic church. Galileo Galilei, one of the most brilliant scientists of his time, was denounced to the Inquisition and persecuted for the rest of his life because he taught that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which contradicted the church's dogma that the Earth sits immovably at the centre of the universe. Even worse, the great philosopher Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for 'heresy'. In modern times, the Catholic church would rather condemn countless women to misery and suffering than allow them to control their own bodies by simple and harmless methods of contraception, and it discourages stem cell research, which might improve or even save the lives of millions of people. In the US, religious fundamentalists have forced many schools to restrict the teaching of evolution and other scientific theories, and instead indoctrinate children with ideas of 'creationism' (nowadays relabelled as 'intelligent design'), thereby killing scientific curiosity and understanding in thousands of young minds and inhibiting future scientific progress. In many backward countries, poorly educated people are brainwashed by religious leaders into believing that a better afterlife awaits them. This spreads defeatism and dampens the struggle for social justice and a better standard of living.

Conclusion (especially for those stuck in the dreary old rut of religion): There is no God. Stop worrying and enjoy your life!

A final note
Any one of the ten reasons cited above is sufficient to reject religion. I wrote this page to record my own thoughts on this subject as a scientist, and of course the overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists. Much more could be said on this subject, but this essay has been kept as short as possible in the hope that it would be more readable.

A much more comprehensive and lucid account of why most scientists reject religion can be found in the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, which I recommend wholeheartedly for further reading.]]>
Ten reasons why atheism is superior to religion
by Nat Queen

1. Which religion?
There are many different religions, each claiming to be the 'true' one, with the obvious implication that all the others are false. Most religions even include many different sects with mutually incompatible doctrines. Each religion is defended by its followers just as ardently as all the others. Obviously they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong! It is well known that young children raised in a family of any particular religion almost invariably end up adhering to that religion. Such indoctrination is a form of child abuse. If the same children were raised in different families, the results would undoubtedly be different. Thus, the particular religion adopted by most individuals is purely an accident of birth. Even if the doctrines of one particular religious sect were correct, all the others would be wrong. It follows logically that any person's religion is almost certainly not the true one. In the absence of objective evidence, it is more rational to reject all religions than to adopt one at random. If God existed, he/she/it might not approve of people following a false religion!

[Note. Since all religions have different ideas about their god(s), for simplicity in what follows we shall refer to all such gods generically as 'God', using the personal pronoun 'he' for definiteness.]

2. Where is the evidence?
There is not a shred of evidence in favour of any religion. Ancient books written at a time when people had little scientific understanding of the natural world, with no independent evidence to back up their claims, are unworthy of serious consideration, even if millions of people revere them. There are just as many people who follow other superstitions which the rest of the world would regard as completely unfounded and even laughable. The ancient Greek and Roman gods were based on time-honoured beliefs and customs followed fervently by innumerable people. Why should the modern ideas of God be any better? Logically, there is no difference - there is simply no evidence. Religious apologists, who have no rational arguments to support their beliefs, often challenge atheists to prove that there is no God. Obviously, it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God, just as no one can prove the non-existence of the tooth fairy, unicorns, or other imaginary beings. If someone claims that some improbable entity exists, the onus is on that person to provide evidence. Belief in things for which there is no objective evidence deserves only ridicule, not respect.

3. God is a despicable evil monster
Where is the great compassionate God on which most modern religions are based? If such a God really cared about the people of the world and were as powerful as modern religions claim, he could certainly make himself known to everyone in an unmistakable manner, thus dispelling doubt and at the same time revealing which religion, if any, is the true one. Is he ashamed to show himself? Where was this God during the Holocaust and other genocidal massacres throughout history, not to mention countless natural disasters causing untold suffering among the innocent? Was he asleep? Away on holiday? Simply enjoying the show because he's a sadist? Too bored by it all to bother to intervene? Punishing good and bad people alike in revenge for some people's misdemeanours? Such a callous, vengeful and spiteful God would be beneath contempt, more evil than Hitler. But of course there's no rational reason to think that God exists.

4. Why bother?
It is ridiculous to imagine that a God having the character claimed by most modern religions would really be so selfish or egoistic as to demand or even expect that people would pay constant homage to him. Would he even care that intelligent people didn't believe in him in the absence of any verifiable evidence? In fact, to a being that created the entire universe, the whole human population would hardly be noticeable! On a cosmic scale there is nothing 'special' about our planet. The Earth revolves around the Sun, which is a fairly average star at an outer extremity of the Milky Way galaxy containing many billions of other stars, many with their own planets, and there are 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. Scientists consider it likely that countless other planets could harbour life. If a super-intelligent being could observe the entire universe, the tiny speck of human population on Earth would be of no more significance than the ants in a particular garden would be to any one of us. Since there is no evidence that God ever interacts with the world, why would he have any interest in the strange rituals of modern religions?

5. Religion is a waste of time and energy
Think of all the time and energy expended by religious people preaching, praying, singing hymns, chanting, mumbling, bowing, kneeling, genuflecting, making unnatural movements of the hands, donning religious garments or amulets, fasting, visiting shrines or 'holy' men, making religious pilgrimages, performing circumambulatory rituals, etc. There is no evidence that any of these activities ever produce positive results. Indeed, there have been numerous incidents when natural disasters or brutal murders occurred while large congregations were attending religious services in churches or temples. Imagine how much could be achieved if all the time, energy and resources devoted to meaningless religious rituals could be diverted to productive purposes!

6. There is no need for the God hypothesis
The ancients invented gods to account for natural phenomena which they could not explain in any other way - lightening and thunder, volcanos, weather and climatic patterns, floods, plagues, the apparent motions of celestial bodies in the sky, etc. Nowadays, every one of these natural phenomena is understood by science. The general principles of Darwinian evolution account for the great diversity of life on Earth and explain convincingly how complex life forms, including the human species, evolved from more primitive life, and indeed there is increasingly abundant evidence for this. Modern cosmology enables us to understand how naturally occurring physical processes lead to the formation of stars and planets like our Earth. There is no need to invoke supernatural explanations for any known phenomena. Physicists now even have plausible theories for the origin of the universe itself. Even though many of the details remain uncertain, the fact that modern science offers possible natural physical explanations of all known phenomena means that God is redundant. The "God of the gaps" is dead!

7. The God hypothesis raises more questions than it answers
Religious apologists often say that God, as a creator, provides a simple explanation of why we are here, and that it even explains the origin of the universe, as a 'first cause'. Exactly the opposite is true - it explains nothing! A God who designed all observable entities, including the many complex forms of life, would have to be an even more advanced being. Who or what created that God? This merely leads to an infinite regress. The answer that God always existed is absurd. What did he do for all eternity until he finally decided for some reason that it would be a good idea to create the universe? The alternative hypothesis that God just suddenly sprang into existence is equally absurd. The nature of the world clearly contradicts the character of the God of modern religions. If God is infinitely good, omniscient and omnipotent, why is his creation so imperfect that it produces constant natural disasters and dreadful diseases resulting in indiscriminate suffering, even among the most devout or innocent people? The cliché "God works in mysterious ways" is merely a cop-out.

8. Religion is a source of evil
Throughout history, religious fanatics have waged holy wars and crusades, plundered, tortured and murdered 'heretics' and 'infidels' simply because they had different beliefs. Hitler, who was privately a committed Catholic, tried to annihilate the Jews. The Jewish state of Israel imposes apartheid policies on its Arab inhabitants. Sunni and Shia Muslims kill each other indiscriminately in Iraq. Tensions between Hindus and Muslims accompanying the creation of Pakistan by the partition of India led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. Bloody conflicts between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland continued for decades. The Catholic church has never apologised for its close links with Nazi regimes in Europe. The Pope's bigoted stance on birth control and abortion is responsible for untold suffering and deaths. Some Muslim countries practise barbaric punishments, such as beheading or stoning to death, in the name of religion. Various religions preach genital mutilation, inhumane methods of slaughtering animals, etc. Religion fills some people with such hate for others that they become suicide bombers. The list of atrocities and crimes against humanity due to religion is endless. Defenders of religion like to say that all these things are not in keeping with the spirit of their religion. But the 'holy' books on which their religions are based are no better. Anyone who peruses the Bible attentively can read that God has sent plagues, ordered murders and genocide, commanded human sacrifice, sanctioned slavery, etc. The Qur'an, just as viciously, promotes looting, torture, rape and murder.

9. Religion is dehumanising
Religious people follow various dogmas unthinkingly and are taught not to question the unsubstantiated claims of their religious leaders. In contrast, atheists are more likely to have an inquisitive mind, to think for themselves, and to form beliefs based solely on the weight of evidence. A scientific understanding of natural physical and biological phenomena is far more awe-inspiring than a naive belief that God is responsible for everything. How can anyone fail to be impressed by modern cosmology, which explains the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, by Darwinian evolution, which accounts for the amazing diversity and adaptation of life, by modern biology, which explains how cells divide and organisms function, or by quantum mechanics, which governs the structure of the atom? Atheism is also superior in the sphere of morality. It is far more noble for people to do things because they feel that their actions are right than to obey religious rules based on the threat that some invisible vindictive being is watching their every move. Rational people are masters over their own lives, not slaves to serve some non-existent God. Religion is an insult to human dignity.

10. Religion impedes progress
Nearly all religions teach their followers to accept their dogmas unquestioningly, and this inhibits free and original thought and innovation. Examples abound throughout history, up to the present day. A good example is provided by the Catholic church. Galileo Galilei, one of the most brilliant scientists of his time, was denounced to the Inquisition and persecuted for the rest of his life because he taught that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which contradicted the church's dogma that the Earth sits immovably at the centre of the universe. Even worse, the great philosopher Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for 'heresy'. In modern times, the Catholic church would rather condemn countless women to misery and suffering than allow them to control their own bodies by simple and harmless methods of contraception, and it discourages stem cell research, which might improve or even save the lives of millions of people. In the US, religious fundamentalists have forced many schools to restrict the teaching of evolution and other scientific theories, and instead indoctrinate children with ideas of 'creationism' (nowadays relabelled as 'intelligent design'), thereby killing scientific curiosity and understanding in thousands of young minds and inhibiting future scientific progress. In many backward countries, poorly educated people are brainwashed by religious leaders into believing that a better afterlife awaits them. This spreads defeatism and dampens the struggle for social justice and a better standard of living.

Conclusion (especially for those stuck in the dreary old rut of religion): There is no God. Stop worrying and enjoy your life!

A final note
Any one of the ten reasons cited above is sufficient to reject religion. I wrote this page to record my own thoughts on this subject as a scientist, and of course the overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists. Much more could be said on this subject, but this essay has been kept as short as possible in the hope that it would be more readable.

A much more comprehensive and lucid account of why most scientists reject religion can be found in the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, which I recommend wholeheartedly for further reading.]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=594 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:57:50 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=594
TVOR]]>
TVOR]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=593 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:57:30 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=593
Of course that was translated into my religion is correct and on and on. Once again-zero thinking. Connections made without evidence. Sorry-but this gets me. Do they look at the grim conditions part of humanity lives in? Not pretty. Horrors against children-god cares?

They know darn well I am an athiest and threw that out at me as evidence waiting for me to reply. Usually I do-this time I cooled it. What would have been a good response.

Thanks

---

P.S. Posted this under science as wonders in the universe are many times attributed to a god and not examined scientifically.]]>
Of course that was translated into my religion is correct and on and on. Once again-zero thinking. Connections made without evidence. Sorry-but this gets me. Do they look at the grim conditions part of humanity lives in? Not pretty. Horrors against children-god cares?

They know darn well I am an athiest and threw that out at me as evidence waiting for me to reply. Usually I do-this time I cooled it. What would have been a good response.

Thanks

---

P.S. Posted this under science as wonders in the universe are many times attributed to a god and not examined scientifically.]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=592 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:36:21 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=592
in my opinion

DON´T BURN ANY BOOKS NO MATTER HOW NONSENSICAL THEY MAY BE, ESPECIALLY TO DELIBERATELY AND USELESSLY OFFEND MINORITIES WHO´RE UNABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES ANYWAY !!!]]>
in my opinion

DON´T BURN ANY BOOKS NO MATTER HOW NONSENSICAL THEY MAY BE, ESPECIALLY TO DELIBERATELY AND USELESSLY OFFEND MINORITIES WHO´RE UNABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES ANYWAY !!!]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=591 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:10:40 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=591
i don´t know if you already heard it but there´s yet again another "superbacteria" myth
all just pharmacy propaganda, right? well, WRONG!!!

But many people seem to believe exactly that and i just wanted address the issue now, before there´s again a global media hype

and for the start i want to begin with the denialists arguments.

ach, don´t be afraid, they just want to squeeze money out of it like with the swine flu

WTF ?!? We´re not talking about a new supposed "castingstar", we´re talking about an actual, new and very dangerous bacteria that is resitant to antibiotics and is dangerous just BECAUSE they said it could take years to invent a new vaccine for it. And OF COURSE they´re getting money for it that´s why they´re working there, but you have to realize that these people are not just charlatanes who are grabbing for your money, these people have spent years studying and researching at univerisities, they know what they´re talking about and really care about your health and wellbeing. What the people making this arguments seem to forget is that people actually died from swine flu, so what are you going to say to the relatives of this people, they shouldn´t be sad because it was all just propaganda anyway? No, the disease was prevented from spreading by taking the right actions BEFORE it started causing real trouble. It´s like trying to convince others to not wear a condom while having sex with strangers because you once had one and didn´t get AIDS and it would just give money to the condom concerns, see the logic simply fails... or is AIDS also just pharmacy propaganda?

man don´t panic, bacterias were around for millions of years and humanity for 160000 years and antibiotics existed only for a few decades so this will also go away.

well, yes, but you know what happend to people in the past who were infected by seemingly uncurable diseases? THEY FRIGGIN DIED. People in the past, like the stone age, lived in little groups with only about a dozen member on a few square kilometers, if this group was affected they simply went extinct. Of course poeple in those days other groups but only to pass on beneficial genetic information, if they interbred with ill individuals they were sorted out (natural selection). But what they didn´t have was the modern globalisation. They didn´t have planes and ships, if one affected individual comes from asia to europe it can spread there within weeks. I mean how do they think aids became alive? It started in one place with one little mutation and started an incomparable march of death throughout the world and while aids is not attacking your body directly whilst this bacteria is, it´s probably even more dangerous.

What these people also fail to metion is, that the avergage human life span more than DOUBLED within the last 150 years. That´s more than 30 years of your life you got to enjoy longer than you would´ve usually, thanks to reseach done by this "blood sucking" pharmacists dedicating there lifes to your benefit. I mean we had people usually die at average ages of about 30-40 years of age for thousands of years and hadn´t raised that for more than five years and that only due to increasing hygiene and than suddenly *poof* we doubled it out of nowhere? Coincidence? I don´t think so.

It´s basically the same as climate and evolution denial. It doesn´t help or benefit anyone it´s completely useless and even worth it does actually damage many people. They would´ve been dead years ago if not for people who are working there asses of to enable them a better, safer and longer life, just that they can speak out against tose people. They take there antibiotics, go to the drugstore, take there vaccine and run to the doctor after every whistle but then speak out against that. It´s just total hypocrisy, i bet you people, for your own sake, don´t fall for this crap. What does this denial to increase our knowledge? Who´s benefiting from it?
NOT YOU, so why do this common people speak out against it? Because their minds have been filled with prejudices by the people who are benefiting from it, the people writing the propaganda, writing the books and holding public seminars. The people who are deliberately lying and damaging our modern civilisation for there personal advance, this are the people worth speaking out against and the the pharmacists, metereologists or biologists. If not for that they´d have to go back selling used cars and woder-drugs, they will never change the mind no matter what evidences will come to hand because they never had this in their minds in the first place! Please remind yourself of that the next time you hear somebody talking about "better science"

Well but there are only about 10 known incidences in india and only one or two in the european countre they were sighted and so far only one person died

Do you really think that there are really only ten incidences in the land where in started but there are already some in europe and japan ?
The important thing about this sentence is the word "KNOWN", there are giant slums in india where diseases can´t be prevented from spreading and because they don´t have any kind of health care they´re unable to go to hospitals for a diagnosis. So it is possible that are already hundreds if not thousands of infected people and it is VERY likely that there is already more than one dead. What we have to do know is NOT closing our eyes, we have to start researching on that topic NOW and with all our might, but even if we do that there will still be more deaths´and you can only pray to your nonexisting god that you won´t be one of them.

There´s an easy way of preventing such things called hygiene[/color]

That´s that´s even right to some degree. But again aids is a very good example. You could just say, "hey, stop unprotected sex with strangers", but that´s easier done than said and besides this is not the only way of spreading. Just recently we had a case here in germany were a nurse carelessly used the same needle for saveral patients and another incident where a crazy madman ran trough a mass and randomly stabbed people, sadly one of them had aids and infected the other victims. Germs and bacterias spread in the most curious ways so if you don´t completely insist on stop drinking eating and leavign your entirely sterilised house this won´t be the final solution. If you don´t believe it´s dangerous ok, but stop telling other people things about issues you don´t know anything about. Let the scientists do the research and look if it can be aranged with your own observations, but not BEFORE that...

hoa hoa *redneck laughter* shwine fluw, bird fluw whad komshs nexd, kammel fluw? hoa hoa *redneck laughter* we beeble are jusd doo shmard foor thish shtopid shientishts hoa hoa

or you funking dimwits´ just don´t understand the basics of microbiology and pull things out of your assholes without any backround knowledge!!!
These people are basically playing russian roulette, just because the bullet didn´t hit the first five times doesn´t mean it won´t do so the 6th time.

To you rational readers out there. I´m not telling you to mindlesly agree with what the experts have to say but don´t dismiss this situation because you think the past few epedemics weren´t "that bad" (just to remind you, people actually died). But stop listening to stupid fucknuts making truthclaims about things they don´t know anything about, they´re not worth it. Do research on your own if it agrees with your observation it´s fine, if not it´s ok too, but don´t dismiss the evidences if you don´t know about it and don´t tell others what to do if you don´t have the qualifications.

i know, calling it a "superbacteria" is a bit overstated but there are already germs in hospitals that already evolved some kind of immunity to antibiotics due to the unresponsible use of it and this is already on another scale so please don´t take it to lightly.

best wishes from germany

PS: this wher actual (a bit edited) uder comments.

Grammatical errors are special effects of my keyboard]]>
i don´t know if you already heard it but there´s yet again another "superbacteria" myth
all just pharmacy propaganda, right? well, WRONG!!!

But many people seem to believe exactly that and i just wanted address the issue now, before there´s again a global media hype

and for the start i want to begin with the denialists arguments.

ach, don´t be afraid, they just want to squeeze money out of it like with the swine flu

WTF ?!? We´re not talking about a new supposed "castingstar", we´re talking about an actual, new and very dangerous bacteria that is resitant to antibiotics and is dangerous just BECAUSE they said it could take years to invent a new vaccine for it. And OF COURSE they´re getting money for it that´s why they´re working there, but you have to realize that these people are not just charlatanes who are grabbing for your money, these people have spent years studying and researching at univerisities, they know what they´re talking about and really care about your health and wellbeing. What the people making this arguments seem to forget is that people actually died from swine flu, so what are you going to say to the relatives of this people, they shouldn´t be sad because it was all just propaganda anyway? No, the disease was prevented from spreading by taking the right actions BEFORE it started causing real trouble. It´s like trying to convince others to not wear a condom while having sex with strangers because you once had one and didn´t get AIDS and it would just give money to the condom concerns, see the logic simply fails... or is AIDS also just pharmacy propaganda?

man don´t panic, bacterias were around for millions of years and humanity for 160000 years and antibiotics existed only for a few decades so this will also go away.

well, yes, but you know what happend to people in the past who were infected by seemingly uncurable diseases? THEY FRIGGIN DIED. People in the past, like the stone age, lived in little groups with only about a dozen member on a few square kilometers, if this group was affected they simply went extinct. Of course poeple in those days other groups but only to pass on beneficial genetic information, if they interbred with ill individuals they were sorted out (natural selection). But what they didn´t have was the modern globalisation. They didn´t have planes and ships, if one affected individual comes from asia to europe it can spread there within weeks. I mean how do they think aids became alive? It started in one place with one little mutation and started an incomparable march of death throughout the world and while aids is not attacking your body directly whilst this bacteria is, it´s probably even more dangerous.

What these people also fail to metion is, that the avergage human life span more than DOUBLED within the last 150 years. That´s more than 30 years of your life you got to enjoy longer than you would´ve usually, thanks to reseach done by this "blood sucking" pharmacists dedicating there lifes to your benefit. I mean we had people usually die at average ages of about 30-40 years of age for thousands of years and hadn´t raised that for more than five years and that only due to increasing hygiene and than suddenly *poof* we doubled it out of nowhere? Coincidence? I don´t think so.

It´s basically the same as climate and evolution denial. It doesn´t help or benefit anyone it´s completely useless and even worth it does actually damage many people. They would´ve been dead years ago if not for people who are working there asses of to enable them a better, safer and longer life, just that they can speak out against tose people. They take there antibiotics, go to the drugstore, take there vaccine and run to the doctor after every whistle but then speak out against that. It´s just total hypocrisy, i bet you people, for your own sake, don´t fall for this crap. What does this denial to increase our knowledge? Who´s benefiting from it?
NOT YOU, so why do this common people speak out against it? Because their minds have been filled with prejudices by the people who are benefiting from it, the people writing the propaganda, writing the books and holding public seminars. The people who are deliberately lying and damaging our modern civilisation for there personal advance, this are the people worth speaking out against and the the pharmacists, metereologists or biologists. If not for that they´d have to go back selling used cars and woder-drugs, they will never change the mind no matter what evidences will come to hand because they never had this in their minds in the first place! Please remind yourself of that the next time you hear somebody talking about "better science"

Well but there are only about 10 known incidences in india and only one or two in the european countre they were sighted and so far only one person died

Do you really think that there are really only ten incidences in the land where in started but there are already some in europe and japan ?
The important thing about this sentence is the word "KNOWN", there are giant slums in india where diseases can´t be prevented from spreading and because they don´t have any kind of health care they´re unable to go to hospitals for a diagnosis. So it is possible that are already hundreds if not thousands of infected people and it is VERY likely that there is already more than one dead. What we have to do know is NOT closing our eyes, we have to start researching on that topic NOW and with all our might, but even if we do that there will still be more deaths´and you can only pray to your nonexisting god that you won´t be one of them.

There´s an easy way of preventing such things called hygiene[/color]

That´s that´s even right to some degree. But again aids is a very good example. You could just say, "hey, stop unprotected sex with strangers", but that´s easier done than said and besides this is not the only way of spreading. Just recently we had a case here in germany were a nurse carelessly used the same needle for saveral patients and another incident where a crazy madman ran trough a mass and randomly stabbed people, sadly one of them had aids and infected the other victims. Germs and bacterias spread in the most curious ways so if you don´t completely insist on stop drinking eating and leavign your entirely sterilised house this won´t be the final solution. If you don´t believe it´s dangerous ok, but stop telling other people things about issues you don´t know anything about. Let the scientists do the research and look if it can be aranged with your own observations, but not BEFORE that...

hoa hoa *redneck laughter* shwine fluw, bird fluw whad komshs nexd, kammel fluw? hoa hoa *redneck laughter* we beeble are jusd doo shmard foor thish shtopid shientishts hoa hoa

or you funking dimwits´ just don´t understand the basics of microbiology and pull things out of your assholes without any backround knowledge!!!
These people are basically playing russian roulette, just because the bullet didn´t hit the first five times doesn´t mean it won´t do so the 6th time.

To you rational readers out there. I´m not telling you to mindlesly agree with what the experts have to say but don´t dismiss this situation because you think the past few epedemics weren´t "that bad" (just to remind you, people actually died). But stop listening to stupid fucknuts making truthclaims about things they don´t know anything about, they´re not worth it. Do research on your own if it agrees with your observation it´s fine, if not it´s ok too, but don´t dismiss the evidences if you don´t know about it and don´t tell others what to do if you don´t have the qualifications.

i know, calling it a "superbacteria" is a bit overstated but there are already germs in hospitals that already evolved some kind of immunity to antibiotics due to the unresponsible use of it and this is already on another scale so please don´t take it to lightly.

best wishes from germany

PS: this wher actual (a bit edited) uder comments.

Grammatical errors are special effects of my keyboard]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=590 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 12:50:48 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=590 ]]> ]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=589 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:56:39 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=589
anyway, in no particular order (and with spelling errors), I've seen:

38 Special
Bangals (Susana Hoffs was HOT back in the 80s)
Bob Dylan
Tom Petty
The Who
Pink Floyd
Springsteen (several times - and growing up a town over from Freehold Bruce was a religion)
Triumph
Metallica (3 times I think)
Def Leppard
Whitesnake
Iron Maiden (I still have hearing loss from his one - even after 20 years)
AC/DC
Steve Winwood
Scorpians
Dokken
Guns & Roses (I'm actually in the Paradise City video - me and 80,000 of my closest friends)
Deep Purple
Aerosmith
George Thoroughgood
Counting Crows - few times
Mighty Mighty Bosstones
Elvis Costello
Van Halen

I've got more but I need to think about it.]]>
anyway, in no particular order (and with spelling errors), I've seen:

38 Special
Bangals (Susana Hoffs was HOT back in the 80s)
Bob Dylan
Tom Petty
The Who
Pink Floyd
Springsteen (several times - and growing up a town over from Freehold Bruce was a religion)
Triumph
Metallica (3 times I think)
Def Leppard
Whitesnake
Iron Maiden (I still have hearing loss from his one - even after 20 years)
AC/DC
Steve Winwood
Scorpians
Dokken
Guns & Roses (I'm actually in the Paradise City video - me and 80,000 of my closest friends)
Deep Purple
Aerosmith
George Thoroughgood
Counting Crows - few times
Mighty Mighty Bosstones
Elvis Costello
Van Halen

I've got more but I need to think about it.]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=588 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:57:02 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=588
it´s often thrown around that buddhist, because they don´t believe in a god, are atheists.
But by that logic, shouldn´t scientologist be considered atheists too?

First of all i´d like to make a quick clarification what atheism actually is.

I think DlandonCondel made a good distinction between two common types of atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/user/DLandonCole#...g2Uz_0WzJs

explicit atheists: People who find that there is not enough sufficient evidence to back up the claim that there is a god.

and

implicit atheists: People who have simply never heard of a god, like babies or people who live seperated from civilastion on a lonely island for example.

But if this are the only two opptions then buddhists as well as scientologists could NOT be considered atheists, because they don´t necessarily think that there is not enough evidence and it´s very likely that they HAVE heard of a the idea of a personal god but simply reject it because it is not their religious duty to believe in them.

so i´d suggest we either add a third possibility, the rejection of theistic claims because you follow a religion that neither supports mono- nor polytheism, or we just sum up all of atheism under the rejection of theism.

So back to scientology.

But isn´t atheism the rejection of religion and the supernatural, you ask?

no

like i made very clear in my earlier statements is atheism the rejection of theism, and theism is the belief in god(s). So atheism, by that logic, is nothing more and nothing less than the disbelief in a god or gods. Atheism says, by the same logic, nothing about the existence of aliens, souls, spritiuality and supernatural claims, that´s what scepticism is for and you´ll see that even some explicit atheists belief in the supernatural or even aliens (i personally don´t). It doesn´t even say anything about the afterlife (beside the fact that there will be no god invoked)...

So my question would be do, you think that scientologists should be considered atheists and if no, why? If yes do you think we should make a clear distinction between religous atheists like buddhists and scientologists and the usual explicit and implicit atheists?

best wishes from germany]]>
it´s often thrown around that buddhist, because they don´t believe in a god, are atheists.
But by that logic, shouldn´t scientologist be considered atheists too?

First of all i´d like to make a quick clarification what atheism actually is.

I think DlandonCondel made a good distinction between two common types of atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/user/DLandonCole#...g2Uz_0WzJs

explicit atheists: People who find that there is not enough sufficient evidence to back up the claim that there is a god.

and

implicit atheists: People who have simply never heard of a god, like babies or people who live seperated from civilastion on a lonely island for example.

But if this are the only two opptions then buddhists as well as scientologists could NOT be considered atheists, because they don´t necessarily think that there is not enough evidence and it´s very likely that they HAVE heard of a the idea of a personal god but simply reject it because it is not their religious duty to believe in them.

so i´d suggest we either add a third possibility, the rejection of theistic claims because you follow a religion that neither supports mono- nor polytheism, or we just sum up all of atheism under the rejection of theism.

So back to scientology.

But isn´t atheism the rejection of religion and the supernatural, you ask?

no

like i made very clear in my earlier statements is atheism the rejection of theism, and theism is the belief in god(s). So atheism, by that logic, is nothing more and nothing less than the disbelief in a god or gods. Atheism says, by the same logic, nothing about the existence of aliens, souls, spritiuality and supernatural claims, that´s what scepticism is for and you´ll see that even some explicit atheists belief in the supernatural or even aliens (i personally don´t). It doesn´t even say anything about the afterlife (beside the fact that there will be no god invoked)...

So my question would be do, you think that scientologists should be considered atheists and if no, why? If yes do you think we should make a clear distinction between religous atheists like buddhists and scientologists and the usual explicit and implicit atheists?

best wishes from germany]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=586 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:12:55 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=586
My possibly correct answer: the genotypes of the parents are so similar, that it's very probable that certain genes have the same effect in a slightly different enviroment.
I find it humiliating how much time it took from me to figure this out, and I did'nt use internet, just my brain. So there are two possibilities:
1. I suck at thinking.
2. It takes a while from someone else here to figure this out too, of course without using the internet or books.

Gimme your answer and I'll see if I'm right. I do'nt like being wrong.
Do I put the ' to the dont, like do'nt?

edit:FUDGE, I cant find a colour that matches the background...
edit2:Fudge it, this thread is useless, just tell me if I'm wrong or right.]]>
My possibly correct answer: the genotypes of the parents are so similar, that it's very probable that certain genes have the same effect in a slightly different enviroment.
I find it humiliating how much time it took from me to figure this out, and I did'nt use internet, just my brain. So there are two possibilities:
1. I suck at thinking.
2. It takes a while from someone else here to figure this out too, of course without using the internet or books.

Gimme your answer and I'll see if I'm right. I do'nt like being wrong.
Do I put the ' to the dont, like do'nt?

edit:FUDGE, I cant find a colour that matches the background...
edit2:Fudge it, this thread is useless, just tell me if I'm wrong or right.]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=585 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:12:06 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=585 I seriously have to ask how anybody can believe this stuff. Please, any ex-theists (or our resident theist) explain? I will give one example that is really, really bugging me, mostly because I am surprised that I had never heard of it before:

Why in the world do people in the bible live so long?? o.0 Seriously, has any theist wondered about that? To me, that's an alarm bell sounding "WTF?" I mean, people are living into their 900s! And still having children! I just can't imagine the explanation theists have for this anomaly. Any explanations, anybody?

Thanks ]]> I seriously have to ask how anybody can believe this stuff. Please, any ex-theists (or our resident theist) explain? I will give one example that is really, really bugging me, mostly because I am surprised that I had never heard of it before:

Why in the world do people in the bible live so long?? o.0 Seriously, has any theist wondered about that? To me, that's an alarm bell sounding "WTF?" I mean, people are living into their 900s! And still having children! I just can't imagine the explanation theists have for this anomaly. Any explanations, anybody?

Thanks ]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=584 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:31:49 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=584 Thats all for now look forward to chatting to like minded people, which can be surprisingly hard on "the old www":)[/b][/size][/font]]]> Thats all for now look forward to chatting to like minded people, which can be surprisingly hard on "the old www":)[/b][/size][/font]]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=583 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:46:22 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=583 I run my own fantasy racing league too.. (If anyone is interested in joining for next year, PM me.)]]> I run my own fantasy racing league too.. (If anyone is interested in joining for next year, PM me.)]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=582 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:36:30 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=582 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=581 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:27:13 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=581 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=580 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:48:05 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=580 live in the usa. i have question and i dont know where put it so ill ask it here. during the "pledge of allegiance" i dont want to stand for the sheer factit says " under god" but i also dont want to insult my teacher whom makes us stand. what do?]]> live in the usa. i have question and i dont know where put it so ill ask it here. during the "pledge of allegiance" i dont want to stand for the sheer factit says " under god" but i also dont want to insult my teacher whom makes us stand. what do?]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=579 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 06:52:38 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=579
http://listverse.com/2007/08/30/top-10-famous-hoaxes/

Guess what lies at the very top of the list? Clue: it's the founding scripture of a certain Utah-based pseudo-Christian religion, which apparently counts over 13 million adherents worldwide. Yep, you've guessed.]]>
http://listverse.com/2007/08/30/top-10-famous-hoaxes/

Guess what lies at the very top of the list? Clue: it's the founding scripture of a certain Utah-based pseudo-Christian religion, which apparently counts over 13 million adherents worldwide. Yep, you've guessed.]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=578 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 06:17:06 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=578
In another thread - I've lost track of it now - someone said that moderates (christian or muslim) have been ignored by the media in favor of more radical believers on both sides. This might be true, but if moderate muslims took to the streets to protest the use of suicide bombers in Israel, I'm pretty confident that the media in the USA would pick up on that story. Or if moderate christians participated in mass demonstrations the next time an abortion clinic is fire-bombed or an abortion doctor is murdered, I'll bet that the media wouldn't ignore that protest.

It seems that marching in the streets over the burning of a sacred book or a cartoon is not only possible, but it's virtually guaranteed, whereas terrorist attacks don't seem that much of a catalyst for protest by moderates. I'm just not buying the argument that it's some sort of media conspiracy against moderates. Rather, it's the volume and visibility of the protests that makes the difference. Moderates may issue statements to the press, but that just doesn't garner the kind of attention that a loud demonstration with banners and slogans can draw. If the radical believers are getting all the attention with their demonstrations, shouldn't moderates be doing the same to repudiate and counter-balance the violence and bigotry their fanatical brethern espouse?]]>
In another thread - I've lost track of it now - someone said that moderates (christian or muslim) have been ignored by the media in favor of more radical believers on both sides. This might be true, but if moderate muslims took to the streets to protest the use of suicide bombers in Israel, I'm pretty confident that the media in the USA would pick up on that story. Or if moderate christians participated in mass demonstrations the next time an abortion clinic is fire-bombed or an abortion doctor is murdered, I'll bet that the media wouldn't ignore that protest.

It seems that marching in the streets over the burning of a sacred book or a cartoon is not only possible, but it's virtually guaranteed, whereas terrorist attacks don't seem that much of a catalyst for protest by moderates. I'm just not buying the argument that it's some sort of media conspiracy against moderates. Rather, it's the volume and visibility of the protests that makes the difference. Moderates may issue statements to the press, but that just doesn't garner the kind of attention that a loud demonstration with banners and slogans can draw. If the radical believers are getting all the attention with their demonstrations, shouldn't moderates be doing the same to repudiate and counter-balance the violence and bigotry their fanatical brethern espouse?]]> http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=577 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:48:22 -0600 http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=577 ]]> ]]>