Creation Museum Places Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark

[Nbadan]

But only at the Creation Museum in Kentucky do the dinosaurs sail on the ship -- Noah's Ark, to be precise.

The Christian creators of the sprawling museum, unveiled on Saturday, hope to draw as many as half a million people each year to their state-of-the-art project, which depicts the Bible's first book, Genesis, as literal truth.

While the $27 million museum near Cincinnati has drawn snickers from media and condemnation from U.S. scientists, those who believe God created the heavens and the Earth in six days about 6,000 years ago say their views are finally being represented.

"What we've done here is to give people an opportunity to hear information that is not readily available ... to challenge them that really you can believe the Bible's history," said Ken Ham, president of the group Answers in Genesis that founded the museum.

Here exhibits show the Grand Canyon took just days to form during Noah's flood, dinosaurs coexisted with humans and had a place on Noah's Ark, and Cain married his sister to people the earth, among other Biblical wonders.

Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070526/us_nm/usa_museum_dc)

Confused?

The Skeptic Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/)

[TDMVPDPOY]

if god created the heaven and earth in 6 days about 6ooo years ago, then wtf is correct then scientist say this planet if 1-2million years old, dinosaurs appeared at that time....now they found about new planets so is the bible going to change its text and say god created the universe to keep on feeding us bs?

[Nbadan]

A new(er) covenant?

[Wild Cobra]

Too bad some people take the political translation of the various English versioned Bible so literal. This earth has been around for so much longer than the religious literal interpretation lets us believe.

The same word translated to "day" and the likes in Genesis' creation story does not mean a day as we know it. These are transitional periods without a distinct time definition. There are so many way to interpret the original Chadean text. Modern scholars know far more about the old tongue and so many long standing beliefs in the bible are flat out wrong.

When God created "Adam," he created "mankind" The word translated to Adam in the creation is mankind, not a proper name. When God created Eve from Adams rib, the word for rib.. of all things... is curve! Women have curves, right? 17th century interpreters took this to mean Adam's rib however. God took a woman from mankind and gave her to a man named Adam, who he gave the property rights to that was know as "The Garden of Eden!" It is not until the story with Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able that the Chaldean word for Adam is a proper name form. Besides, after Cain slew Able, where did his wife come from? Must have been other family units out there somewhere?

So many things are wrong.

If you correlate the Torah with other ancient texts and look at it from our modern understanding, you find that the Gods changed the humanoid forms on this earth and created mankind about 60,000 years ago. The Chaldean words in the creation easily could indicate genetic engineering, as it literally means "formed."

Consider why we have the missing link?

Guess what. The Chaldean form of the word translated to "God" in the old testament is a plural form meaning deities!

Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews says that his subjects shall have "no other gods"

Genesis 6:xx, just before the flood, tells us that the sons of gods had children with the daughters of man....

With this new understanding of the past written history, and faith in God, is it any wonder many of us believe in intelligent design? Evolution given a boost every now and then by the hand of God.

[boutons_]

already posted

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68780

[xrayzebra]

I wonder why God didn't give whales enough sense to find their
way back to the ocean when they take a wrong turn?

I think some humans must have evolved from whales.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I wonder why God didn't give whales enough sense to find their
way back to the ocean when they take a wrong turn?

I think some humans must have evolved from whales.

I think you evolved from rocks

[Mr. Peabody]

I think you evolved from rocks

http://www.celebritypuke.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/thethingew.jpg

[Nbadan]

If you correlate the Torah with other ancient texts and look at it from our modern understanding, you find that the Gods changed the humanoid forms on this earth and created mankind about 60,000 years ago. The Chaldean words in the creation easily could indicate genetic engineering, as it literally means "formed."

Interesting, ever heard of the Droppa?

[jacobdrj]

If I am not mistaken, Dinos pre-date the ark. Mention of giants is in genisis' forst 3 chapters, not having to do with either the leviathan or any known animals.

Ultimately, who cares? What difference does it make?

[exstatic]

Measure and size two Brontos.

Measure and size the ark, to biblical specs.

End of story.

























Not to mention that TRex would have fucking EATEN everything else. :downspin:

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Hegamboa's chode has increased in mass two fold.

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting, ever heard of the Droppa?
I don't recall hearing that name. The broad ideas I recall easily. Would it come up if I re-read my sources?

[RandomGuy]

Measure and size two Brontos.

Measure and size the ark, to biblical specs.

End of story.


Yup. How can one be a biblical literalist is beyond me. If there really were dinosaurs on the ark, then the bible MUST be wrong about the dimensions, but there were dinorsaurs on the ark because the bible is right about how old the universe is according to some quack in the 14th century. :smchode:

[clambake]

Are you trying to say that Noah is not our original father?

[j-6]

I don't recall hearing that name. The broad ideas I recall easily. Would it come up if I re-read my sources?

Droppas are the pygmies in China, right? Where the old Soviets stole those UFO discs from?

[Gerryatrics]

Measure and size two Brontos.

Measure and size the ark, to biblical specs.

End of story.

Hate to interrupt your intelligent and well reasoned bashing of Biblical history, but you do know that the Brontosaurus never actually existed... right? I also think you need to take another look at your ancient-to-Imperial/Metric measuring conversion chart.

[Phenomanul]

Hegamboa's chode has increased in mass two fold.


Dude, you are obsessed and need help. Cut that crap out.

Either bring a take or STFU!

[RandomGuy]

Hate to interrupt your intelligent and well reasoned bashing of Biblical history, but you do know that the Brontosaurus never actually existed... right? I also think you need to take another look at your ancient-to-Imperial/Metric measuring conversion chart.

Correct on the first part waaaay wrong on the second.

Actually, you don't even need dinosaurs to far exceed any conceivable ark no matter how you convert it.

Two of every species would have to inlcude EVERY species alive today, as well as every species since the flood that has gone extinct.

EVERY SPECIES


[culled from various websites, using google searches of "insect species", etc]
Insects
There are about 900,000 known insect species, three times as many as all other animal species together, and thousands of new ones are described each year.



Birds
8000+ species identified and currently living.

Mammals
4629 currently recognized species of mammals.

Marsupials
Depending on the classification system used, scientists have identified between 260 and 280 species of marsupials

Reptiles
8000+ species

Etc.

This is just what is KNOWN.

We have over 1.3M species of what would have to have been carried on a hypothetical ark. Wikipedia count of species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species)


Let's be generous and say we know about 75% of all those species.

1.3/.75=1.73

Noah's ark carried AT LEAST 1.73 million different species, AND somehow deposited them in biologically similar groupings (notice any marsupials in europe?), with land-locked species distributed over every continent and islands not connected to Eurasia.

Um, right.

[Phenomanul]

Correct on the first part waaaay wrong on the second.

Actually, you don't even need dinosaurs to far exceed any conceivable ark no matter how you convert it.

Two of every species would have to inlcude EVERY species alive today, as well as every species since the flood that has gone extinct.

EVERY SPECIES


[culled from various websites, using google searches of "insect species", etc]
Insects
There are about 900,000 known insect species, three times as many as all other animal species together, and thousands of new ones are described each year.



Birds
8000+ species identified and currently living.

Mammals
4629 currently recognized species of mammals.

Marsupials
Depending on the classification system used, scientists have identified between 260 and 280 species of marsupials

Reptiles
8000+ species

Etc.

This is just what is KNOWN.

We have over 1.3M species of what would have to have been carried on a hypothetical ark. Wikipedia count of species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species)


Let's be generous and say we know about 75% of all those species.

1.3/.75=1.73

Noah's ark carried AT LEAST 1.73 million different species, AND somehow deposited them in biologically similar groupings (notice any marsupials in europe?), with land-locked species distributed over every continent and islands not connected to Eurasia.

Um, right.

The Bible doesn't use our modern taxidermical system.

All it says is that GOD instructed Noah to take two of every creature, male and female, according to its KIND aboard the ark. It makes no mention of EVERY SPECIES as you've implied.

At that point, you take a pair of canines and you have all our dog, wolf, coyote, fox, dingo, and jackal species covered.

Similar for the insect families, for the rodentia family, for the marsupial family, for the feline families, the pachiderms etc....

But that's not the point; no matter what I say, one can choose to believe in Noah's flood or not. Were there dinosuars aboard the Ark? Perhaps, but not likely. For that matter, one can't conclusively state either position with sufficient proof to hold their ground. Inferences and deductions aren't of much use in this case.

One thing is for certain. People need to understand that one can't scientifically prove the supernatural because those events occur outside the realm of the natural laws that bind our universe (i.e. events such as the universe's origin, creation itself, Noah's flood, the Red Sea crossing, Elijah's Chariot, Jesus's miracles, etc...). Science, as you well know, measures and describes our 'world' within the explicit constraints and structure of the natural laws that govern its existence. Those laws allow us to state that if a bowling ball of mass, m, were held 10 ft above the ground that it would strike the ground with a certain velocity and force, and depending on its net spring constant it would bounce back up to a certain height x and so forth. It is predictable. It is measurable. It was true 2000 years ago, just as it is true today (with slight differences accounting for changes to earth's mass, or the proximity of the sun and the moon). The supernatural, on the other hand, is not bound by any laws. Try and measure such an event; where would you begin? Were one to see a supernatural event would we even recognize it? It can occur, and leave no trace behind. That fact doesn't sit well with our 'we need proof of everything society'. It doesn't sit well with a scientific community that wants palpable proof and explicit parameters on which to base their conclusions.

What's funny about that particular take is that they ignore one of GOD's most magnificent gifts of all. LIFE itself is a supernatural incidence. GOD is the author of all life. What marks the difference between a recent cadaver, and a conscious, functional, living, human being? What is the ultimate measure of vitality; between life and death? I don't believe the existence of a spiritual realm will ever be measured scientifically; but I believe it exists. Just like I believe LIFE can't be measured, created, or contained; even though we clearly know it exists.

Once again, to those who keep harping on it; SCIENCE is not the catch all, end all argument to everything. Until people face that reality, using it as an instrument to debunk GOD, or biblical accounts is foolhardy. Particularly because doing so apparently gives them the means of justifying their own social perspectives, without realizing that the mis-matching of realms is intellectually dishonest (false dichotic premise).

Believe what you will. I believe in GOD for an entirely different set of reasons (GOD is my personal fountain of Life, Hope and Love), and not just because I happen to attribute Creation to HIM.

[RandomGuy]

The Bible doesn't use our modern taxidermical system.

All it says is that GOD instructed Noah to take two of every creature, male and female, according to its KIND aboard the ark. It makes no mention of EVERY SPECIES as you've implied.


:spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin

A good working definition of species is pretty much that you can only really sucessfully breed within that species.

For that taxonomy to be effective, it would have to acknowledge that from your proposed "kind" of animal, that all variations of that animal somehow (dare I say it?) evolved from that basic KIND into the variety of species we have today.

It also does not explain how land-locked creatures got to australia or, for that matter to the western hemisphere.

[clambake]

When do we all have our family reunion?

[Phenomanul]

:spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin

A good working definition of species is pretty much that you can only really sucessfully breed within that species.

Canines can do it (sharing interfertility amongst themselves). So can many insect families. Others choose not to even though they are fully capable and others still because they've lost the ability to hone in on each others' sexual drives (i.e. they've divergently fine-tuned the pheromones which would attract them to each other).




For that taxonomy to be effective, it would have to acknowledge that from your proposed "kind" of animal, that all variations of that animal somehow (dare I say it?) evolved from that basic KIND into the variety of species we have today.

Most animals and plants have branched out genetically. I've never denied that fact. Was that genetic material initially present and inactive or did it randomly create itself? The latter is the process I will vehemently oppose.



It also does not explain how land-locked creatures got to australia or, for that matter to the western hemisphere.

Plate tectonics?... trans-siberian ice bridge over the Bering Sea? Or dare I say it! Divine intervention.

Look, I don't presume to know everything about the supernatural events of the Bible. Nor are they the focus of the Bible (a far more important fact). Anyhow, I'm not going to spend my time arguing with you. We decided awhile back to respectfully disagree. But at least I appreciate the fact that your arguments aren't simple-minded hate-driven rants. You have legitimate questions, and unfortunately I don't have all the answers. Belief in GOD is not driven by proof - nor should it be. It is driven by a relationship and until you experience HIM yourself there is not one thing I can say to make you believe otherwise.

[clambake]

Belief in GOD is not driven by proof - nor should it be. It is driven by a relationship and until you experience HIM yourself there is not one thing I can say to make you believe otherwise.

Can you expand on this? Your dad's a preacher, right? Isn't he the HIM you experience?

[DarkReign]

Enough already. What a tired argument. Bible-thumpers will believe what they want to believe.

The only time their belief becomes a problem is when they try and subsitute science with their beliefs in the scientific/educational world.

So far, only weird, ultra-religious small towns of the northwest ban teaching of evolution in public schools (maybe not anymore). When that line of shit hits home (never going to happen), I'll start to care.

[RandomGuy]

. We decided awhile back to respectfully disagree. But at least I appreciate the fact that your arguments aren't simple-minded hate-driven rants. You have legitimate questions, and unfortunately I don't have all the answers. Belief in GOD is not driven by proof - nor should it be. It is driven by a relationship and until you experience HIM yourself there is not one thing I can say to make you believe otherwise.

Yup. I think we have had this argument before and pretty much came to that conclusion.

BUT

My belief in God allows room for science and evolution. The bible has its bright spots, but shouldn't be taken too literally.

That is where we will diverge, I guess.

[johnsmith]

Can you expand on this? Your dad's a preacher, right? Isn't he the HIM you experience?



:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

[Phenomanul]

Yup. I think we have had this argument before and pretty much came to that conclusion.

BUT

My belief in God allows room for science and evolution. The bible has its bright spots, but shouldn't be taken too literally.

That is where we will diverge, I guess.

That is not the point of our contention....

Your last comment suggests that my belief in GOD displaces SCIENCE; that is not the case. I've simply come to the conclusion that there are realms that science doesn't cover. A supernatural GOD definitely falls in that category.

How do you measure GOD under that premise?

Where we differed was that you were willing to accept infintessimal odds, and belief in a multi-universe theory, as the basis for the natural origin of the universe, and origin of DNA. I chose not to accept those odds. But again... no need to enter that fray once more.

[exstatic]

is phenomanual advocating evolution?

The Bible doesn't use our modern taxidermical system.

All it says is that GOD instructed Noah to take two of every creature, male and female, according to its KIND aboard the ark. It makes no mention of EVERY SPECIES as you've implied.

At that point, you take a pair of canines and you have all our dog, wolf, coyote, fox, dingo, and jackal species covered.
It would appear so, if one breeding pair of "canines" less than 6 thousand years ago became all types of canine species. In fact, that would be AGGRESSIVE evolution, faster than anything posited by recognized science.

[Bob Lanier]

Their Eve is one hot original sinner.

http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2007/05/31/creation_museum/story.jpg

[Phenomanul]

It would appear so, if one breeding pair of "canines" less than 6 thousand years ago became all types of canine species. In fact, that would be AGGRESSIVE evolution, faster than anything posited by recognized science.


The mainstream definition of Evolution is governed by random mutations that occur over time and that are selectively chosen by the environment (natural selection) - i.e. if the change was beneficial to the survival of that species, more than likely it would be passed on to the next generation, and so forth. It is an unguided and inherently chaotic process, where more mutations are discarded or detrimental than those that would be considered beneficial. It is slow, and requires time for full blown speciation and divergence to be achieved. I don't buy it when presented as such.

I believe that GOD endowed the creatures in HIS creation with the ability to adapt, with the ability to change and that these changes were wholly embedded within their original genomes. All the genetic material they would ever need to branch out into various niches was already there, stored away in 'inactive' zones of every species' particular DNA. Over the years however, some of those genes were activated or recombined with existing ones to produce noticably different phenotypes. Then over spans of several generations those genotypic changes coupled with fine-tuned selective breeding habits subsequently produced what we would later classify as distinct species. Has the fact that all canine 'species' still remain completely interfertile with each other eluded you?

How is it that these species are so radically different both in genotypes and phenotypes (dogs, wolves, dingoes, jackals, coyotes, etc...) and yet still be able to breed with each other? Could it be that our classification for a species is too narrow? Could it be that we are witnesses to a guided adaptation process and not some agressive evolutionary process gone awry? boutons_ last genetically oriented thread about the team of researchers from Harvard, Stanford and Princeton touched on this very same theme - although it wasn't presented as such. Various experiments conducted on drosophilia flies have pointed to this very phenomenon as well. Sometimes the data paints a picture we don't want to see. And biologists have done a damn good job of drawing attention away from this inconsistency in their 'evolutionary' model - particularly those who have embraced evolution as their undeniable 'proof' that GOD is a fable.

Is it any wonder that certain species can 'speciate' within a matter of three or four generations (i.e. similar to what we see in dog breeding, or plant hybrids). Since biologists know that mutations alone cannot account for this accelarated process they have done their best to keep such 'aberrations' on the down low. Most people struggle to fathom that even the simplest of genes is still highly complicated. Nevertheless, we are still being taught to believe and unconditionally accept that the random step-function model that drives 'evolutionary' changes is the engine that produces such genes. That's why their biological models require millions upon millions of years and the very same reason that fast-tracked 'speciation' is hard to swallow. AGRESSIVE EVOLUTION... you're right. It doesn't exist - at least not in how science has defined evolution to begin with.

[mookie2001]

team of researchers from Harvard, Stanford and Princetonthose credentials arent very impressive

[Bob Lanier]

Of course they are. If they weren't, they suggest that both evolution may have occurred and that their target demographic may not be at the pinnacle of human existence.

It's actually rather shocking that Adam isn't a balding tub of lard.

[DarkReign]

they're white :rolleyes who woulda thunkit

Damn, you know, thats a very interesting observation!

Truly, the first question someone should ask at that display is...."Soooo, the models look all well and good, but where did Chinese and Black people come from?"

[clambake]

Damn, you know, thats a very interesting observation!

Truly, the first question someone should ask at that display is...."Soooo, the models look all well and good, but where did Chinese and Black people come from?"
How about blondes and redheads? Intelligent design sure had alot of details.

[Phenomanul]

those credentials arent very impressive


You obviously don't remember that thread**. Try to keep up.


(**a close friend of mine was on that research team... I pointed out that the implications of their findings were a stab in the heart to the principles that govern micro-evolution)

[Phenomanul]

How about blondes and redheads? Intelligent design sure had alot of details.


And you obviously have no clue whatsoever to what you're talking about. :rolleyes

Your attempts to be sarcastically poignant at the expense of something you vaguely understand will invariably fall short when delivered without knowledge.

[clambake]

The sarcasm is directed at the museums portrayal of adam and eve. You've got your head buried so deep into "that book", you can't see it. If you believe in your God, then you have to believe in others, too.

[Yonivore]

If you believe in your God, then you have to believe in others, too.
If I believe in my God, there are no others.

[clambake]

Are other Gods somehow not legitimate? What prevents you from believing in them? The part that says "Believe in no other God"?

[johnsmith]

I've posted this article before, but what the hell, I'll even bold the parts I believe pertain to this thread, just like Boutons and Dan.

Ok, I have seriously had ENOUGH of this fucking bullshit from you mother fucking hypocrites! I can't go anywhere online anymore without having to deal with crap about my religious beliefs. What the FUCK ever happened to the First Amendment? Huh! You assholes seem to think it's there to protect YOU and only YOU! Well go fuck yourselves, it's NOT! Guess what, it's there to protect everyone from religious persecution - EVERY-FUCKING-ONE!

Religious persecution? What am I talking about? I'm talking about how every smart-ass Atheist, Agnostic, or Pagan online thinks it's their fucking mission in life to insult, belittle, and degrade the Christian religion. You don't believe in a damn thing? Fine! Fuck you and have at it! Do you think any of us give a rat's ass what you do or don't believe in? What, you think it BOTHERS us that you don't believe in God? I could really fucking care less! You don't have faith in anything beyond what your senses tell you, that's YOUR problem, not mine! Keep it to yourself, fucktard!

You assholes run around whining about "The Christians do this, the Christians do that, the Christians, the Christians, the Christians, it's all their fault, I hate the Christians, blah blah blah blah blah!" Newsflash: Every bad thing in the fucking world is NOT our fault!

Yes, Christians started wars in Christ's name - like 500 fucking years ago, idiot! Isn't it about time you got over that? We're not running around killing "non-believers" anymore, so why are you still bitching about something that happened back then? You know what? I don't fucking care! That's right, I don't give a rat's ass if my great-great (x10) Grandfather was the fucking pope and had your great-great (x10) Grandfather thrown to the fucking Lions. I really don't give a fuck - now shut up about it, you dull-witted cunt!

Yes, a lot of Christians do have a really bad habit of shoving their beliefs down other people's throats and looking down on those who don't accept Christ. So, what, you figured you'd fight fire with fire? Did you think it would somehow make you feel better to do EXACTLY THE SAME FUCKING THING to Christians? Well I hope it helped boost your pathetic little ego, cuz it's over now. It's bigotry, it's religious intolerance and "The Christians started it" is NOT A FUCKING EXCUSE for you to do it! Galen ain't havin' this shit ANYMORE you cocksucking fucks!

Here's how it's gonna work. From now on, you insult my religion in even the smallest way, I'm going to magically transform into the most intolerant fucking asshole you've ever met and make it my goal for the next few minutes afterward to put down everything you hold dear. Yeah, the Christians started it, then you picked it up and turned it into your own personal Anti-Jesus pissing match, now I'm jumping in the game. That's right asshole, Lord Galen is sinking right the fuck down to your level and you're gonna wish like hell you'd never pulled me down there!

Now, here's a tiny preview. Don't bother responding, your opinion doesn't matter, dickhead.

Atheists: Shut your fucking pie-holes. Just because you don't have the mental capacity to reach beyond what your five senses tell you, that is not our problem. Pick up a 3rd grade science book asshole and you might discover that the universe if FILLED with shit that we can't explain or even prove. But I guess that doesn't mean a damn thing to you, right? And here's a lesson in what that word "Atheism" means - it means a lack of ANY religious belief whatsoever. It does NOT mean "anti-religion" it means NO fucking religion whatsoever! By being an anti-Christian prick, you've just picked a side and by the very definition of the word, Atheists aren't supposed to even believe in there BEING a side to pick!

Pagans: Y'know, I share a whole lot of Pagan beliefs myself, so I really hate to say this, but I'm sick of you assholes too! You sit around believing in 50 different fucking gods and goddesses and then call us a "baby religion" because we fucking picked ONE and stuck with it??? Bite me hard, shitsacks!

Jews: What's the fucking deal with you? People insult us and you just sit back and don't say a DAMN word about it! Hey, genius, we believe in the SAME God! There picking on your Jehovah too, dipshit! The least you could fucking do is stick up for us instead of sitting back on your hands while the religion that's closest to your own gets sniped by assholes! I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I've always felt a kinship with the Jewish people. Jesus was a Jew, his Apostles and Disciples were all Jews, the first Christian church was founded by JEWS! So, sorry if I feel like maybe the Jewish community should be doing a little more than...um, nothing.

If you leave this rant feeling like I'm an intolerant bastard, GOOD! That's how you're supposed to feel! That's pretty much how I feel about each and every one of you right now, so I hope it feels nice getting a taste of your own fucking medicine you assholes!

For the record, no, I don't have anything against anyone for believing differently than I do. I respect it and even encourage it. Variety is the spice of life and all that. I'm not intolerant or bigoted about people and their beliefs, but I can damn sure ACT like I am and from now on I intend to make it a point to do exactly that! I'm sick and damn tired of putting up with you anti-Christian assholes and your fucking BIGOTRY against my people! You take any opportunity you can to make some snide little remark about us or to belittle us in some way. Oh sure, most of you won't come right out and insult us because you're fucking pussies; you'd rather hide behind your sublty-worded inuendos and subliminal mind-fuck retard games. Enough of it. I ain't havin' this shit anymore and any of you who think you've got the fucking balls to go a round or two with me, you just bring it on!

Actually, don't. It would be a whole lot better (for you) if you just shut your fucking mouth and take this as a learning experience. Hopefully you got the message:

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSULT, BELITTLE, OR DEGARDE MY BELIEFS - NO MATTER WHAT!

This is the last time I'm speaking about this. The next thing you hear on this subject from me is going to be me insulting everything you hold dear - just like you assholes constantly do to my people! This IS it! You're not better or smarter or more "open minded" than Christians. You're not entitled to look down your noses at us just because you think we do it to you. Two rights don't make a wrong.

There are plenty of problems with mainstream Conservative Christians. You wanna talk about those problems, fine. You wanna insult ALL of us because you hate the bigoted among us, that's not fine and that makes you just as bad as the people you claim to hate so much.

[Bob Lanier]

I love the smell of victim in the morning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# Text).

[DarkReign]

DINOSAURS!

http://www.androidworld.com/trex.jpg

Roar, bitches

[clambake]

WJXT-TV—Jacksonville, FL

Valedictorian's Speech About Christ Prompts Controversy

WJXT-TV
10:14 p.m. EDT May 28, 2007
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A high school class's top student took the show at her graduation with a nearly 20-minute speech urging her fellow students to find God -- a topic that prompted a commencement controversy. Wolfson High School valedictorian Shannon Spaulding made the comments in front of a large crowd of proud parents, friends and classmates.

Some members of the audience said Spaulding picked the wrong forum to share her beliefs, while others applauded her courageous message.

The valedictorian's speech was about Jesus Christ and suggested those who don't believe would go to hell.

"I want to tell you that Jesus Christ can give you eternal life in heaven," Spaulding said before the crowd. "If we die with that sin on our souls, we will immediately be pulled down to hell to pay the eternal price for our sins ourselves."

For 17 minutes, Spaulding's speech went on, making religious references to Bible scriptures that were often followed with applause.

"Like the Geico Insurance slogan -- so easy a caveman can do it. Letting Jesus take care of our sin problem is so easy a child can do it," said Spaulding.

However, there were some in the audience who said they were uncomfortable during the speech and felt the comments were inappropriate.

"It was not the right forum. We were all sent there to have a joyous occasion and not a religious revival," said Samantha, who was at the event to see her sister graduate.

School superintendent Joseph Wise issued a statement after the graduation ceremony, stating he deeply regretted that "the student exercised her time in her valedictorian speech in a manner that was offensive and insensitive to some."

Spaulding told Channel 4 she was not aware of the controversy and stands behind everything she said.

"I was not trying to force anything on anybody. I just wanted to tell them something I knew was important to me and wanted to have them a chance to hear," Spaulding said.

While some were uncomfortable about her message, there were others who felt it was very appropriate speech.

"I think that was the most important thing to her, and I think she had the right to say it. She succeeded in becoming valedictorian, and that was her right," said attendee Carileen Bollinger.



Sounds like a "well trained, programmed little robot".

[Phenomanul]

WJXT-TV—Jacksonville, FL

Valedictorian's Speech About Christ Prompts Controversy

WJXT-TV
10:14 p.m. EDT May 28, 2007
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A high school class's top student took the show at her graduation with a nearly 20-minute speech urging her fellow students to find God -- a topic that prompted a commencement controversy. Wolfson High School valedictorian Shannon Spaulding made the comments in front of a large crowd of proud parents, friends and classmates.

Some members of the audience said Spaulding picked the wrong forum to share her beliefs, while others applauded her courageous message.

The valedictorian's speech was about Jesus Christ and suggested those who don't believe would go to hell.

"I want to tell you that Jesus Christ can give you eternal life in heaven," Spaulding said before the crowd. "If we die with that sin on our souls, we will immediately be pulled down to hell to pay the eternal price for our sins ourselves."

For 17 minutes, Spaulding's speech went on, making religious references to Bible scriptures that were often followed with applause.

"Like the Geico Insurance slogan -- so easy a caveman can do it. Letting Jesus take care of our sin problem is so easy a child can do it," said Spaulding.

However, there were some in the audience who said they were uncomfortable during the speech and felt the comments were inappropriate.

"It was not the right forum. We were all sent there to have a joyous occasion and not a religious revival," said Samantha, who was at the event to see her sister graduate.

School superintendent Joseph Wise issued a statement after the graduation ceremony, stating he deeply regretted that "the student exercised her time in her valedictorian speech in a manner that was offensive and insensitive to some."

Spaulding told Channel 4 she was not aware of the controversy and stands behind everything she said.

"I was not trying to force anything on anybody. I just wanted to tell them something I knew was important to me and wanted to have them a chance to hear," Spaulding said.

While some were uncomfortable about her message, there were others who felt it was very appropriate speech.

"I think that was the most important thing to her, and I think she had the right to say it. She succeeded in becoming valedictorian, and that was her right," said attendee Carileen Bollinger.



Sounds like a "well trained, programmed little robot".


What's the big deal, I did the same thing in my speech.

So answer me this: where does the Constitution suggest that a public speech with 'religious' overtones automatically be considered a proselytizing act?

People say stuff I don't agree with everyday. You respect their opinion and move on - no one ever said you have to agree with everything you hear.

Was it racist? Degrading? Prejudicial? No, it is simply a belief structure.

[Wild Cobra]

What's the big deal, I did the same thing in my speech.

So answer me this: where does the Constitution suggest that a public speech with 'religious' overtones automatically be considered a proselytizing act?

People say stuff I don't agree with everyday. You respect their opinion and move on - no one ever said you have to agree with everything you hear.

Was it racist? Degrading? Prejudicial? No, it is simply a belief structure.
I completely agree. Isn't it ironic that liberals will cry at the top of their lungs "It is my first amendment right" untill someone else says something they don't like, then thy want to ban it!

[LaMarcus Bryant]

WJXT-TV—Jacksonville, FL

Valedictorian's Speech About Christ Prompts Controversy

WJXT-TV
10:14 p.m. EDT May 28, 2007
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A high school class's top student took the show at her graduation with a nearly 20-minute speech urging her fellow students to find God -- a topic that prompted a commencement controversy. Wolfson High School valedictorian Shannon Spaulding made the comments in front of a large crowd of proud parents, friends and classmates.

Some members of the audience said Spaulding picked the wrong forum to share her beliefs, while others applauded her courageous message.

The valedictorian's speech was about Jesus Christ and suggested those who don't believe would go to hell.

"I want to tell you that Jesus Christ can give you eternal life in heaven," Spaulding said before the crowd. "If we die with that sin on our souls, we will immediately be pulled down to hell to pay the eternal price for our sins ourselves."

For 17 minutes, Spaulding's speech went on, making religious references to Bible scriptures that were often followed with applause.

"Like the Geico Insurance slogan -- so easy a caveman can do it. Letting Jesus take care of our sin problem is so easy a child can do it," said Spaulding.

However, there were some in the audience who said they were uncomfortable during the speech and felt the comments were inappropriate.

"It was not the right forum. We were all sent there to have a joyous occasion and not a religious revival," said Samantha, who was at the event to see her sister graduate.

School superintendent Joseph Wise issued a statement after the graduation ceremony, stating he deeply regretted that "the student exercised her time in her valedictorian speech in a manner that was offensive and insensitive to some."

Spaulding told Channel 4 she was not aware of the controversy and stands behind everything she said.

"I was not trying to force anything on anybody. I just wanted to tell them something I knew was important to me and wanted to have them a chance to hear," Spaulding said.

While some were uncomfortable about her message, there were others who felt it was very appropriate speech.

"I think that was the most important thing to her, and I think she had the right to say it. She succeeded in becoming valedictorian, and that was her right," said attendee Carileen Bollinger.



Sounds like a "well trained, programmed little robot".

:lmao
reminds me of the chick who did her speech before elpimpo during high school commencement...how much you wanna bet 75% of the crowd were bored and dozing off half way through?

[clambake]

What's the big deal, I did the same thing in my speech.

So answer me this: where does the Constitution suggest that a public speech with 'religious' overtones automatically be considered a proselytizing act?
It's a graduation ceremony, likely filled with small children. I guess that's a good time to plant the fear of god in them. Congratulations! That's how it works. Of course you approve.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

If you get the grades you deserve the chance to say whatever the fuck you want to say, as long as its not hurtful. If you wanna look like a holier-than-thou and try persuading others to follow your god, its your prerogative.

[johnsmith]

It's a graduation ceremony, likely filled with small children. I guess that's a good time to plant the fear of god in them. Congratulations! That's how it works. Of course you approve.


Children? Believing in God? NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

[Phenomanul]

It's a graduation ceremony, likely filled with small children. I guess that's a good time to plant the fear of god in them. Congratulations! That's how it works. Of course you approve.

:dramaquee

OK... so every topic where children are present must remain completely devoid of any mention of GOD. Got ya. I guess I missed the part where hearing about GOD's love for humanity was a message that ruins lives.... What a load of garbage.


Please, you act like children don't hear about sex, rape, murder, violence, guns, gangs, drugs and foul language, everytime they turn on the TV... every day at school.

I guess that's a good time to plant the ways of the world in them. Get them started young. Congratulations. That's how it works. Of course you approve.

[Phenomanul]

:lmao
reminds me of the chick who did her speech before elpimpo during high school commencement...how much you wanna bet 75% of the crowd were bored and dozing off half way through?


My speech actually set a 'precedent' at my school.... I still keep hearing about how subsequent Valedictorians tried to emulate it, how they tried to match the delivery... how the bench mark was set too high... yadda yadda yadda....

Maybe the standards at your school were set too low. :drunk

On a side note, you all act as if condemnation were the central theme of such speeches. Nothing could be further from the truth... Most of those speeches are meant to be uplifting. The central message in mine for example, was about continuing to learn... 'never stop learning'...

Anyway......

[clambake]

:dramaquee

OK... so every topic where children are present must remain completely devoid of any mention of GOD. Got ya. I guess I missed the part where hearing about GOD's love for humanity was a message that ruins lives.... What a load of garbage.
Couldn't agree more with the load of garbage analogy.


Please, you act like children don't hear about sex, rape, murder, violence, guns, gangs, drugs and foul language, everytime they turn on the TV... every day at school.
Perfect time to throw them in your imaginary hell, compliments of your loving god.

I guess that's a good time to plant the ways of the world in them. Get them started young. Congratulations. That's how it works. Of course you approve.
Shutting down schools is probably not an option, but I'll look into it.

[mookie2001]

come on phenoenmanual

you know we want to see them
bust out the credentials

[johnsmith]

Couldn't agree more with the load of garbage analogy.


Perfect time to throw them in your imaginary hell, compliments of your loving god.

Shutting down schools is probably not an option, but I'll look into it.


I cannot wait, cannot fucking wait, until your kids are so "emo" in their teens that they can't figure out which way is up and which way is down.


You'll ask for help then...........God will still listen...........but it doesn't stop making you the biggest assclown on this site.

[PixelPusher]

I cannot wait, cannot fucking wait, until your kids are so "emo" in their teens that they can't figure out which way is up and which way is down.


You'll ask for help then...........God will still listen...........but it doesn't stop making you the biggest assclown on this site.

http://www.ambfrance.fr/actualites/images/mary1.jpg

(sigh)...if only Marylin Manson had been brought up in a proper, god-fearing Christian home...

[clambake]

http://www.ambfrance.fr/actualites/images/mary1.jpg

(sigh)...if only Marylin Manson had been brought up in a proper, god-fearing Christian home...

The result of too much preaching. Thanks Pixel.

[gtownspur]

http://www.ambfrance.fr/actualites/images/mary1.jpg

(sigh)...if only Marylin Manson had been brought up in a proper, god-fearing Christian home...


Kid's rebel??

NO way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is so news breaking!!!

WHat other facts and tidbits will atheist discover now?

That men are different than women?

Having a father and a mother is better towards a child's stability than single parenting?

[gtownspur]

:lmao
reminds me of the chick who did her speech before elpimpo during high school commencement...how much you wanna bet 75% of the crowd were bored and dozing off half way through?


I believe it, it was due more of the fact that she used proper english throughout the speech rather than spanglish.

[gtownspur]

those credentials arent very impressive

I get it now. You hate christians becuase
God hates;

Ron Paul

NAFTA


and

Free Speech...........

































along with bukkakes, chocolate eclairs, and Vince Young.

[Bob Lanier]

One of those things is not like the others.

[gtownspur]

One of those things is not like the others.
What? Bukkakes?

[Bob Lanier]

No, the legislator. Bukkake's all good.

[Phenomanul]

Couldn't agree more with the load of garbage analogy.


Perfect time to throw them in your imaginary hell, compliments of your loving god.

Shutting down schools is probably not an option, but I'll look into it.

:rolleyes
Reading Comprehension 101

You should probably go back and take it. You desperately need it.

edit: For that matter while you're back there trying to catch up you may as well go back and also take:

Chemistry 101
Organic Chemistry 201
Biology 101
Microbiology 201
Physics 101
Quantum Physics 201
Geology 101
Astronomy 101
Climatology 101
Anthropology 101
Genetic Engineering 301

etc... etc...

Maybe then you can hang in the conversation instead of trying to divert it towards trivialities. And I don't care anymore if you all think this is patronizing or condescending. My belief structure takes into consideration everything I know about our world - you may not agree with it; but that was never a command - I'm not ordering anyone to believe what I believe. Believe what you will, but at least be able to back it up... Or do nothing and continue believing that everyone else has it figured out for you instead of trying to learn it for yourself.

[Bob Lanier]

Take Virology 420 while you're at it.

[Phenomanul]

Take Virology 420 while you're at it.


It's included in genetic engineering.

[clambake]

Is that where I will find Christ?

[Phenomanul]

Is that where I will find Christ?


No...

But you can continue to beat around the bush.... seems like you're good at it.

[gtownspur]

:lol
Is that where I will find Christ?



:lol :lol :lol :lol

[gtownspur]

Sorry Hega, i thought it was funny.

But i see your point.

[clambake]

Maybe then you can hang in the conversation instead of trying to divert it towards trivialities. And I don't care anymore if you all think this is patronizing or condescending. My belief structure takes into consideration everything I know about our world - you may not agree with it; but that was never a command - I'm not ordering anyone to believe what I believe. Believe what you will, but at least be able to back it up... Or do nothing and continue believing that everyone else has it figured out for you instead of trying to learn it for yourself.
You have this idea in your head that believing in religion and believing in God are the same thing.
I grew up in Belfast, the playground for one of religions darkest moments in modern time. I can assure you that evil exist in the root of the church.

It's not your God I mock. Shannon Spaulding should keep her sermons in a sanctuary, where they belong. Is that somehow simply not good enough? Are networks dedidcated to Preaching not enough?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Are his credentials the source of his belief in his personal jesus or is it belief in his personal jesus that is the source of his credentials?

It's like a koan.

[Phenomanul]

my credentials!



Are his credentials the source of his belief in his personal jesus or is it belief in his personal jesus that is the source of his credentials?

It's like a koan.

Where's the third wheel of the Victoria clan, mookie2001? And your pesky troll drone, LaMarcus Bryant? Put your heads together... Maybe then you all can tackle the collegiate concepts being discussed in this thread. But be very, very weary of a 'chode' explosion since you all apparently fear that so much. :smchode: :smchode:

On a side note: go ahead and tangentialize the thread... and like always, keep avoiding its substance. What? Are you all afraid your embarrasing little secret will be exposed? That you all are incapable of adding anything resembling a coherent counter-argument to threads. I think people know by now. YOUR POSTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. :dizzy :dizzy :downspin:

[Phenomanul]

You have this idea in your head that believing in religion and believing in God are the same thing.
I grew up in Belfast, the playground for one of religions darkest moments in modern time. I can assure you that evil exist in the root of the church.

It's not your God I mock. Shannon Spaulding should keep her sermons in a sanctuary, where they belong. Is that somehow simply not good enough? Are networks dedidcated to Preaching not enough?

I am very sorry if you feel that what happened in Ireland (and the 'religious' intolerance that keeps surfacing there) is representative of a relationship with GOD.

Your aversion to a true conversation on the topic - since you've already placed your past experiences as an afront to it - wouldn't allow me to discuss this matter properly on a forum such as this one. It would require a face to face conversation that I'm not entirely sure you would care to have - especially since you've shown a propensity to lash out protectively with sarcasm.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Where's the third wheel of the Victoria clan, mookie2001? And your pesky troll drone, LaMarcus Bryant? Put your heads together... Maybe then you all can tackle the collegiate concepts being discussed in this thread. But be very, very weary of a 'chode' explosion since you all apparently fear that so much. :smchode: :smchode:

On a side note: go ahead and tangentialize the thread... and like always, keep avoiding its substance. What? Are you all afraid your embarrasing little secret will be exposed? That you all are incapable of adding anything resembling a coherent counter-argument to threads. I think people know by now. YOUR POSTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. :dizzy :dizzy :downspin:


You draw your conclusions based on scientific study and I draw mine. It's a given our model of evolution has holes and is not perfect, and I've said a bajillion times i think its silly to fill those holes with ID. But trying to convince me to fill those holes with ID just because I can't come up with a 50000 word explanation what the hole should be filled with is tantamount to chumpdumper scoffing at me for scoffing at the 9/11 commission report and not coming up with my own commission report.


This thread is about propaganda bull shit and its sad if people actually get suckered into paying to see this museum of crap. There is no substance to this thread, unless you are partial to crap.

That is my own thought about the subject of this thread.
:pctoss

[xrayzebra]

Here is a quite lengthly article I found on a UK newspaper.
Brother against brother. It is quite good and reminds me of
the argument being carried on here in this thread.
Comment made in body of text of article, moved here to add
clarity.....XZ

"Family differences: Christopher Hitchens and Peter have disagreed about politics and about the invasion of Iraq - now they are arguing about God"

Hitchens vs Hitchens
By PETER HITCHENS - More by this author » Last updated at 22:40pm on 2nd June 2007

Comments Comments (31)
Am I my brother’s reviewer? A word of explanation is needed here. Some of you may know that I have a brother, Christopher, who disagrees with me about almost everything.

Some of those who read his books and articles also know that I exist, though they often dislike me if so. But in general we inhabit separate worlds – in more ways than one.

He is of the Left, lives in the United States and recently became an American citizen. I am of the Right and, after some years in Russia and America, live in the heart of England. Occasionally we clash in public.

We disagreed about the Iraq War – he was for it, I was against it. Despite the occasional temptation, I have never reviewed any of his books until today.

But now, in God Is Not Great, he has written about religion itself, attacking it as a stupid delusion.

This case, I feel, needs an answer. Most of the British elite will applaud, since they see religion as an embarrassing and (worse) unfashionable form of mania.

And I am no less qualified to defend God than Christopher is to attack him, neither of us being experts on the subject.

People sometimes ask how two brothers, born less than three years apart, should have come to such different conclusions.

To which I’d answer that I’m not sure they’re as different as they look, and that it’s not over yet.

Christopher has quite often written and spoken about our upbringing and background, whereas I haven’t, but I think I’m now entitled to give a small account of what we have in common.

Because my father was in the Navy, we were brought up in a very old-fashioned Britain. Looking back, it often seems to have been a sombre landscape of grey warships and the stench of fuel-oil – but also of cathedral towers, bells and choral evensong.

Our boarding-school education, mainly on the edge of Dartmoor, took place in conditions closer by far to the Thirties than to now.

Our ancestry, so far as I have been able to dig it up, is a volatile mixture. On my father’s side, fierce West Country nonconformists mixed with gentle, rather saintly Hampshire Anglicans. One grandfather was a pioneer of the National Union of Teachers and a straggler from the First World War, saved from the trenches by being sent to India.

Well into the Sixties his house was a museum of the world before 1939: no telephone, no TV, but a quietly singing kettle always on the hob and a mangle in the porch, and he refused to read fiction because he thought it immoral.

As for the other grandfather, I have yet to track him down, and we were always told he was "killed in the war", which is true in the sense that he was run over by a bus in the blackout.

From what I can gather, nobody was sorry about this, least of all his wife, my mother’s mother, who had long before thrown him out of the house for his misdeeds.

She was partly Jewish, granddaughter of an immigrant from Prussian Poland, who confused things greatly (from the point of view of the racially obsessed) when he married a nice English girl.

There’s enough material in that background for quite a lot of fraternal variety, I think.

Christopher is an atheist. I am a believer. He once said in public: "The real difference between Peter and myself is the belief in the supernatural.

"I’m a materialist and he attributes his presence here to a divine plan. I can’t stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity or who is a person of faith."

I don’t feel the same way. I like atheists and enjoy their company, because they agree with me that religion is important.

I liked and enjoyed this book, and recommend it to anybody who is interested in the subject. Like everything Christopher writes, it is often elegant, frequently witty and never stupid or boring.

I also think it is wrong, mostly in the way that it blames faith for so many bad things and gives it no credit for any of the good it may have done.

I think it misunderstands religious people and their aims and desires. And I think it asserts a number of things as true and obvious that are nothing of the sort.

At the heart of this book are two extraordinary, bold statements. One is a declaration of absolute faith, faith that religion has got it wrong, a mental thunderbolt of unbelief.

Christopher describes how at the age of nine he concluded that his teacher’s claim that the world must be designed was wrong. "I simply knew, almost as if I had privileged access to a higher authority, that my teacher had managed to get everything wrong."

At the time of this revelation, he knew nothing of the vast, unending argument between those who maintain that the shape of the world is evidence of design, and those who say the same world is evidence of random, undirected natural selection.

It’s my view that he still doesn’t know all that much about this interesting dispute. Yet at the age of nine, he "simply knew" who had won one of the oldest debates in the history of mankind.

It is astonishing, in one so set against the idea of design or authority in the universe, how often he appeals to mysterious intuitions and "innate" knowledge of this kind, and uses religious language such as "awesome" – in awe of whom or what?

Or "mysterious". What is the mystery, if all is explained by science, the telescope and the microscope? He even refers to "conscience" and makes frequent thunderous denunciations of various evil actions.

Where is his certain knowledge of what is right and wrong supposed to have come from?

How can the idea of a conscience have any meaning in a world of random chance, where in the end we are all just collections of molecules swirling in a purposeless confusion?

If you are getting inner promptings, why should you pay any attention to them? It is as absurd as the idea of a compass with no magnetic North. You might as well take moral instruction from your bile duct.

Two pages later, speaking for atheists in general, he announces: "Our belief is not a belief."

To which one can only reply: "Really? And that thing in the middle of your face. I suppose that’s not a nose, either?"

Christopher is not tentative about his view on God. He describes himself as an "anti-theist", so certain of his, er, faith that he wars with bitter mockery against those who doubt his truth.

Well, I wish I were as certain about any of these things as Christopher is about his anti-creed.

He reminds me rather more of the bearded Muslim sages of the Deoband Islamic university in India I met last year, than of the cool, thoughtful Anglicanism that we were both more or less brought up in.

For the purposes of this book, religion is identified as a fanatical certainty. No doubt there are plenty of zealots who suffer from this problem.

But it is obvious to anyone that vast numbers of believers in every faith are filled with doubt, and open to reason. The Church of England’s greatest martyr, Thomas Cranmer, was burned at the stake for changing his mind once too often.

The noblest thinker of that Church, Richard Hooker, enthroned reason, alongside tradition and scripture, as one of the governing principles of faith, and warned against crude literal use of the Bible to justify or prohibit any action.

Yet Christopher repeatedly asserts that believers "claim to know", not just to know, but to know everything. This simply is not true. Nor do we take the Bible literally.

I never imagined that scripture had the fact-checked authenticity of, say, an account in The New York Times – though as we know even that grand newspaper sometimes publishes made-up stories without realising it.

Did the Supper at Emmaus really take place? How I hope that it did, but I do not know that it did, in the way that I know a British soldier has recently been flown home dead from Basra or Helmand, or even in the way that I know that another such soldier will soon make the same sad journey.

Many decades have passed since I fancied the story of Adam and Eve was literal truth, if I ever did. Rather more recently I have realised the great warning against human arrogance that is contained in it, the serpent’s silky promise that if we reject the supposedly foolish, trivial restrictions imposed on us by an interfering, jealous nuisance of a God, then we shall be liberated.

As the serpent promises: "Ye shall be as gods." These may be the most important words in the whole Bible.

Take the enticing satanic advice, and you arrive, quite quickly, at revolutionary terror, at the invention of the atom bomb, at the torture chamber and the building of concentration camps for those unteachable morons who do not share your vision of a just world.

And also you arrive at the idea, embraced by Christopher, that by invading Iraq, you can make the world a better place.

I hesitated about mentioning this. Was it unfair, a jab below the belt? No.

Much of his book is devoted to claiming that religious impulse drives Man to do, or excuse, or support wicked and terrible things in the name of goodness.

Is this not a perfect description of the Iraq War, which he backed?

On the few occasions where Christopher is prepared to admit that religious people have done any good, he concludes that they did so in spite of their faith, not because of it.

He even suggests that the atheist Soviet tyranny was itself a form of religion.

You can’t win against this sort of circular absolutism.

Yet he has this absurdly backwards. Religious and unbelieving people have both done dreadful things, and the worst of them have committed their murders and their tortures in the belief that they were doing good.

Nothing is proved by either side in this argument, by pointing to the mountains of skulls piled up by evil atheists, and evil theists.

What they have in common is that they are human, and capable of the sin of pride. The practice of religion does not automatically prevent this, and nobody said it did.

It sometimes joins in with it, as Christopher points out.

But if there is a voice raised against such arrogant pride in the heedless modern world, it is usually a religious one, and the death camps and dungeons of dictators always contain their ration of the faithful who – at the cost of all they held dear in the world – have listened to their consciences even when the message was so unwelcome.

Perhaps they are just mad: I do not think so.

My claims, you see, are much milder than his. When I skulk in the pew of a nearly-empty church, repeating the lovely, poetic formulas of the Church of England, I do not imagine that I am saved for all eternity.

For all I know, Christopher is absolutely right – my prayers are pointless and a meaningless oblivion awaits. But if he is right, what a dispiriting, lowering truth it is.

Atheists like to claim they behave no worse than believers, and often better. I don’t deny it, in my case. It would be easy for almost anyone to have lived a more virtuous life than mine.

But why should atheists care, or use such terms as "good" and "virtue" anyway?

If we are weak and poor, we can all summon up self-interested decency, behaving in a kind way, in public, towards those from whom we hope for decency in return.

But as soon as we have the power to do evil, we generally do. What is to stop us, unobserved, doing and planning acts of selfish unkindness against others, as so many of us do – for example – in office politics?

What is to stop us, in the privacy of the home, taking advantage of the goodness of others more generous than ourselves? Who will ever know?

If we become rich or mighty, how much worse the problem is. We can rob, wound and defraud our fellow creatures without any fear that they will be able to take revenge. A surprising number of us have power to act in this way.

Look at the annual massacre of unborn babies, done away with for the convenience of adults.

In the harsher parts of our great cities, strong, violent people rule their neighbours with pre-medieval savagery, demonstrating a fine understanding of what it means if there is no God: that if something works for you, and you can get away with it, then you may do it without fear of consequence in this world – and there is no next world.

That is practical atheism. Those who follow it probably cannot even spell it. Comfortable, suburban unbelievers hate to have this pointed out to them.

They would never behave like that, surrounded as they are by the invisible web of ten centuries of Christian law and morality, which still protects the nicer parts of our country.

But it is the application of what they preach, the worship of self and power.

Faith and belief can be and often are restraints on this arrogance of power. They offer the possibility of justice where human society fails to provide it – as it almost always does fail.

There is one chapter in this book whose implications are sinister. It is Chapter 16, which attempts to suggest that religion is child abuse.

On the basis of such arguments, matched by similar urgings from Professor Richard Dawkins, I can see a movement growing to outlaw the teaching of faith to children.

Then what? Liberal world reformers make the grave mistake of thinking that if you abolish a great force you don’t like, it will be replaced by empty space.

We abolished the gallows, for example, and found we had created an armed police and an epidemic of prison suicides. We abolished school selection by exams, and found we had replaced it with selection by money. And so on.

We are in the process – encouraged by Christopher – of abolishing religion, and so of abolishing conscience, too.

It is one of his favourite jibes that a world ruled by faith is like North Korea, a place where all is known and all is ordered.

On the contrary, North Korea is the precise opposite of a land governed by conscience.

It is a country governed by men who do not believe in God or conscience, where nobody can be trusted to make his own choices, and where the State decides for the people what is right and what is wrong.

And it is the ultimate destination of atheist thought.

If you do not worship God, you end up worshipping power, whether it is Kim Jong Il, Leon Trotsky or the military might of George W. Bush. In which case, God help you.

Here is a link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=459427&in_page_id=1787&in_a_source=

[Bob Lanier]

Taking the drunken ramblings of Christopher Hitchens seriously is a sign of impending AIDS.

[johnsmith]

You draw your conclusions based on scientific study and I draw mine. It's a given our model of evolution has holes and is not perfect, and I've said a bajillion times i think its silly to fill those holes with ID. But trying to convince me to fill those holes with ID just because I can't come up with a 50000 word explanation what the hole should be filled with is tantamount to chumpdumper scoffing at me for scoffing at the 9/11 commission report and not coming up with my own commission report.



In other words, people that disagree with you are wrong because you say so, and you don't need to give any evidence to prove they are wrong because you are you?


Douche Bag.

[Wild Cobra]

You draw your conclusions based on scientific study and I draw mine. It's a given our model of evolution has holes and is not perfect, and I've said a bajillion times i think its silly to fill those holes with ID. But trying to convince me to fill those holes with ID just because I can't come up with a 50000 word explanation what the hole should be filled with is tantamount to chumpdumper scoffing at me for scoffing at the 9/11 commission report and not coming up with my own commission report.


This thread is about propaganda bull shit and its sad if people actually get suckered into paying to see this museum of crap. There is no substance to this thread, unless you are partial to crap.

That is my own thought about the subject of this thread.
:pctoss
We don't all fit your perception. Maybe some do.

Now I agree that the English version of the Torah with the "Noah and the Ark"
story is not quite right. I find this Ark Museum laughable myself. If I had more time, I would study the Chaldean words interpreted in the story. I place good odds that Noah wasn't commanded to get every animal, nor that the story literally means the entire earth was flooded. There are explanations that are plausible, and again. The literal translation of the Bible is rarely right.

Christians and Jews, by faith, believe in the creation, the flood, and other events in the Bible. The more enlightened religious people who understand the sciences, and the inconsistencies in the Bible are open to a truth that fits both the creation and evolution. We also see the compelling facts that support evolution. Why is it so hard to believe the God's performed genetic engineering here on earth? We do it today in simple forms.

I am one who has read translations of the Samarian's history of the creation, and it parallels the creation in Genesis very closely. However, it give a unique history of the God's coming to earth and using mankind as slave labor to complete tasks. It goes on to how the Gods argued over making man, more like God. They wanted a more intelligent work force, but didn't want mankind to have a soul. Part of this could be the basis of Eve being seduced by the serpent to eat from the apple. I cannot recount the story completely, but it is there, in Samarian history, myth, dogma, whatever you wish to call it. Those with both a scientific and religious background clearly see these stories as not only being true, but puts so many things into a theory that makes perfect sense. Intelligent design is a theory that has a very strong basis to accept.

[gtownspur]

In other words, people that disagree with you are wrong because you say so, and you don't need to give any evidence to prove they are wrong because you are you?


Douche Bag.


Are you scoffing me? How dare you!

BUkkakes

Internets

Victoria!!

[boutons_]

"Christians and Jews, by faith, believe in the creation, the flood, and other events in the Bible."

Typically unwarranted generalization, doesn't even apply to the majority of US Christians and even fewer Christians outside the US, which has become the laughing stock of the world due to ICers and Bible-thumpers wanting to overturn 200 years of science.

[Wild Cobra]

"Christians and Jews, by faith, believe in the creation, the flood, and other events in the Bible."

Typically unwarranted generalization, doesn't even apply to the majority of US Christians and even fewer Christians outside the US, which has become the laughing stock of the world due to ICers and Bible-thumpers wanting to overturn 200 years of science.
LOL... The media finds those who have irrational theories and use those views for the stories. How often have you heard the view expressed that agrees with the science, and still believes in the creation?

[johnsmith]

LOL... The media finds those who have irrational theories and use those views for the stories. How often have you heard the view expressed that agrees with the science, and still believes in the creation?


Nope, according to Boutons, if it's on TV, it must be true.

[boutons_]

"The media finds those who have irrational theories"

bullshit, again. The creationists/IDers work very energetically to get into the media to spew their ignorance, to overturn science, spend 10s of $Ms on a joke as "museum".

[xrayzebra]

"The media finds those who have irrational theories"

bullshit, again. The creationists/IDers work very energetically to get into the media to spew their ignorance, to overturn science, spend 10s of $Ms on a joke as "museum".

Why should anyone "work very energetically" to get into
the media .....to overturn science.....

Just wait long enough and they will do it themselves,
always have, always will.
:p:

[Extra Stout]

That museum is right. We need to get away from the poisonous principles of the Enlightenment, which undermine the great ideals upon which our Constitution was founded.

[DarkReign]

Pretty blue text used in the most succint manner.

[RandomGuy]

The creationists/IDers work very energetically to get into the media to spew their ignorance, to overturn science, spend 10s of $Ms on a joke as "museum".

They do, and it's scary. The decision in Kansas should alarm anybody. The thing about religious fanatics is that they don't give up.

[Nbadan]

Did you say rib or ribbed?


COLUMBUS, Ohio - The man picked by the Creation Museum to play Adam leads quite a different life outside the Garden of Eden.

Records show that Eric Linden owns a pornographic web site called "Bedroom Acrobat."

He's been pictured there in a T-shirt brandishing the site's sexually suggestive logo.

Linden grew up in Columbus.

The 27-year-old appears as Adam in 1 of 55 videos featured on visitor tours at the Petersburg, Kentucky museum.

Associated Press (http://www.wfmj.com/Global/story.asp?S=6627249&nav=menu491_2)

...at least he's straight..

[Death In June]

People that believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted are retarded. Fortunately my life will be relatively the same whether people celebrate how dumbass they are or not. As long as they don't try to squeeze this shit into an already failing education system, I'm happy. I don't need some nutcase trying to teach kids an archaic theory designed so christians can feel better about their life choices.