Do Atheists Like Science that Doesn't Suit their Agenda?

I just point that American atheists recite positions of "Scientific Atheism" taught in schools and universities of the oppressive to human rights and freedoms the USSR,… I point to the fact that American atheists are promoting the same views and the same ideology as the most oppressive and brutal regime in history; that “Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot." I just state facts and let people to make conclusions. It is up to the people to see or not to see that American Atheists represent a clear and immediate danger to American freedoms.

It is exactly what the KGB wanted. Either you are lying or you are qualified as an “useful idiot “ according the KGB classification.
You remove theism, which speaking straight is Xty out of schools and what is left in the schools, - vacuum? Or may be it is what we observe today – the results of decades of the efforts of the KGB?

 

Did I stop there? Yes? No? Another atheist is feeling an urge to spin and twist.

After the fall of the atheistic regime in the USSR Scientific Communism and Scientific Atheism were abandoned, thrown into garbage. The idea American atheists that this somehow puts peoples of the former USSR into the Middle ages proves to anyone who has basic feeling of reality that atheists are void any feeling of reality.

FYI. Soviet students of Soviet Universities who were forced to be atheists would laugh at your attempt to put Boyle's Law and Bernoulli's Law in the same category as scientific atheism. They would agree with you because such an absurd could be pronounced only by a faithful member of the ruling party, but they all would qualify you as an idiot or a liar or both.

FYI. There was no such subject as science in the Soviet schools. There was no subject claiming to belong to science except for scientific atheism and scientific communism in the Soviet universities. There was physics and geometry and algebra in schools; higher physics, higher chemistry and mechanics of liquids and gases in universities, but there was no scientific physics or scientific thermodynamics. The expression “scientific thermodynamics” is as oxymoron as scientific atheism or scientific data or scientific method or scientific consensus. And this total and totalitarian oxymoron is, as everyone can observe, spreading over schools and universities of this free country like cancer.

 

You either did not read or did not understand or did not watch the explanation of the KGB Colonel.

the soviet government also had a very dominant agenda against the existence of Christianity in the US as it did in the USSR. As the first task it had to destroy Xnty in the US if it wanted to take over this country (and it had no other choice nut to want it) . It had been pushing this agenda in the US by hands of American useful idiots for decades. For any soviet it is a basic tactic: One first has to take over schools and universities and media. And look at the results.

( Just one of the results http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-30/...e-charges-internet-chat-documents?_s=PM:CRIME

Such an atmosphere was impossible in the same university 50 years ago when krushev started the plan. It is not a mere exclusion, not a single spike. You can check scientific publications of other professors of the same faculty and you will see why such a scumbag was feeling like it "Yes we can". Remember that these professors are advising the government on public health policies. )

Scroll back and try it again.

 

How do you force someone to be an atheist?

How do you get scientists if you don't teach science?

 

You do what Stalin did, and line them up and tell them to renouce their faith or you will shoot them - and then do it when they do not renounce their faith. You declare them enemies of the state and subversives, create a paranoia society filled with secret police who report any 'religious' violations - followed by the kill team coming in at night.

You teach atheism in schools, coupled with the evil of religion, and force children to take tests on the subject, test that determine the suitability for leadership and access to priviledge. You forbid the teaching of religion, except under the most negative circumstances imagineable, and your forbid skepticism and questioning of the party line.

It drive it so far underground that no one can practice anything but atheism on penalty of death.

That's how.

Do atheists read history?

A repressive state puts you there. BTW - just like the atheists who preach it on this forum, they thought it was science - and, just like the atheists on this forum, you dismiss all criticism of the 'science' with insults and accusations of delusion.

 

Most Athiests dont have an agenda...they simply do not beleive in god...

 

That's why they hang out in religion forums, because they do not care ....

 

So trying to prevent laws and regulations based on religious views is somehow a "clear and immediate danger to American freedoms"?

No, I don't think so.

Um, facts?

Most atheists (including myself) don't seem to have a problem with various religions taught in school as long as it's in a historical or possibly even a comparative philosophy course. Just no proselytizing or state sponsored prayer, etc. That's why churches exist. We have plenty of those. No need to try and turn schools into an extension of the church. Plus, it's unconstitutional.

 

A big crunch is looking less and less likely. The data, as limited as it is, shows that expansion is accelerating, not reversing.

What? Why shouldn't atheists be the people who define atheism? Would you accept that atheists knew the definition of your religion better than you did? If not, why would you claim to know what atheism is more than atheists do?

 

Like?

Or are you going to claim that you have abortion figured out in such a sense that everyone will go, "Agh, well, that is the solution to abortion, we've all been so stupid!"

Religious people get to participate in the process, and what you are really aimed to do is disenfrachise people.

Neither do most religious people. Nevertheless, during the debate about it, each and every atheists who came to that conclusion, nevertheless decided we were all fundamentalists Creationists who had rejected science and that CReationism was in dire danger of being taught as science.

In short, it revealed a need for education in the atheist community, not the religious community. A comparative religion class would go a LONG way to eliminating many of the ingrained silliness of atheism - like the 'dire threat' of religious legislation that is simply not there.

 

There is absolutely not enough data to know what is going on. Period.

There is also the find that dark matter is linking the universe like little strings, and no one knows quite what that effects.

There is also the possibility of ANOTHER Big Bang, because, well, its all natural and completely devoid of God, so, happens once it could happen again.

Are you simply taking a position because you want science to disagree with religion? That is not skepticism.

Becaue what atheism is shift on a dime.

1. Its scientific, as you clearly seem to be indicating above. Yet when we dig into it, we see that science very cleary does not eliminate God. But we're still morons and you don;t use faith.

2. Now WE have the burden of proof, and of course, even with strong preponderance of the evidence cases, atheism then further disassociates itself from evidence by coming up with Santa, space teapots, FSM's, etc., that, when examined, are fallacious and totally illogical.

3. No worries, you see thanks to the magical conclusions of agnostic atheism, atheists don;t actually claim anything, you see, and thus hav no burden of proof because they claim nothing - but still act like atheists and continue to shove science down people's thorats in ways that are anything but scientific.

4. Atheism is JUST the belief in no God. And yet, when you point out things like this:

http://www.atheists.org/atheism

http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/religion/Atheism.html

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm#WHATISPOSATH

http://www.secularhumanism.org/

When you dig into it, you find weaknesses in all of the approaches, and of course, no atheists actually wants to sign up for any of these things - even as they preach them.

The really interesting part is that, when discussions of moralilty come up, atheists still adhere to agnostic atheism rather than secular humanism.

6. Having been through all that, atheism is basically up to the atheist. Its whatever he or she says or wants it to be - a religion with ZERO standards. One bereft of any tangible commonalities - or at least the refusal of any atheist to defend these things appropriately.

In effect, it little more than the worship of the self - when all the layers are pulled away.

 

But we can observe the expansion of the universe, and we can see that it isn't slowing down.

Not for us, in any meaningful sense.

No. I am taking this position because there is no evidence to suggest that some miraculous reversal of expansion would happen. Absent some reason for expansion to slow down (and gravity does not seem to be sufficient), it won't. Religion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the expansion of the universe, nor my perspective on it. I literally do not consider religion at all when considering scientific questions. It's irrelevant.

Not so. You define atheism to mean what you want it to mean, and when atheists disagree with that definition, you claim they are changing the definition. The problem is that you had no business defining what atheists believe to begin with. No one ever bothered to ask atheists what atheism meant. When atheists agree on a definition (that atheism is a lack of belief in deities), theists always find it in themselves to insist that the atheists must be wrong and that the definition must instead be a belief that there is no god. It is disrespectful and poor debate etiquette to try to define your opponent's position for him.

The definition of atheism has never changed, only the theists' willingness to accept that definition.

If you want to believe in your diminishing god of the gaps, go ahead, but that is a god that is nothing more than ignorance. The god of the gaps does no service to either religion or science. What's more, a lack of knowledge is not really grounds to claim that baseless speculation is as good as truth. To claim that god could have been involved is silly if there is no cause to believe that god was involved.

It would be like coming upon a murder scene where Alice has been killed. Her brother Joe who lives ten thousand miles away had a falling out with her twenty years ago and they have not talked since. The theists claiming that god has a role in science are akin to a police investigator coming upon the scene and insisting that Joe must have been involved in Alice's murder, because there was a lot of bad blood between them. Never mind the fact that there's no evidence on the scene that suggests that Joe was there, or had anything to do with it.

Just because there's no evidence that god wasn't involved is no reason to even tentatively accept that god might be involved, or cause to inject god into the matter. A theory should be as simple as it can be and still adequately explain the evidence, and in some cases where there is insufficient evidence to come to a conclusion, the simplest answer may well be 'I don't know'. The simplest answer is never going to be the proposition that an incomprehensibly complex and omnipotent yet hidden being is responsible for the event. If there is no evidence suggesting that god did it, there is no reason to claim that he might have.

They are totally illogical in the same way that god is totally illogical. They are thrown out as sarcastic examples to illustrate that point. Atheists talk about the flying spaghetti monster because there is exactly the same degree of evidence for the FSM as there is for god, but the FSM is far more amusing to talk about. No evidence. Whatsoever. And you can, in fact, replace the claims about god word for word with claims about the FSM and have the same predictive or descriptive utility. There is literally no more evidence for god than there is for the FSM, and if the FSM is illogical, then god is equally illogical.

You claim the comparison is fallacious, but the truth is that the claims are pretty much the same, the only thing that's changed is the window dressing.

Apparently educating people about science is shoving science down their throats? I guess math teachers are shoving math down students' throats, and English teachers are shoving proper grammar down students' throats. In ways that are anything but educational. Seriously, anyone can come up with some word salad about nonsense. The difficult part, and what you seem to have trouble doing, is making sense.

I am an atheist, I disagree with that definition. How can it possibly be an accurate definition of atheism if atheists won't even accept that definition? The only definition that pretty much all atheists can agree on is that atheism is a lack of belief in deities. That's it. The notion that atheists believe there is no god is wrong.

That's right. We're not interested in letting you define us. We're not interested in playing that game. We define ourselves, we are not defined by our opponents, and the only definition atheists seem to agree on is that atheists lack belief in deities. That's not a definition theists like, because almost all their criticisms of atheism revolve around that straw man definition that atheists believe there is no god. Yes, our definition is uncomfortable for you, because you've become accustomed to arguing against your own straw man.

You can take your straw man and shove it.

Morality discussions between atheists and theists never get far enough for theists to really probe the origins of atheistic moralities. You never find out what an atheist believes about morality, because you're too busy trying to pin down some unified atheist moral system. Atheists are as unified on questions of morality as all theists are.

Is your moral system different from a hindu's moral system? Yes, it is. In the same way that your moral system is different from the moral systems of other theists, atheists also have differing moral systems. Some might be existentialists, others might be marxists. Some could be secular humanists, while others are buddhists. It's not a unified belief system, it's just the opposite of theism.

It's really hard to get a bunch of people to agree about dogma and rules and systems... about a common shared lack of belief. Not believing in something is not a unifying principle around which people can build a religion. Yes, atheism is basically up to the atheist, and that's why the only definition that can apply to atheists is that atheists lack a belief in deities. Not all atheists believe there is no god, but all atheists lack a belief in deities. It's the only definition that applies to all atheists.

Is theism a religion? No, it's not. Why would you assume that atheism is? Atheists certainly haven't claimed that not believing in deities is a religion. We claim that it's a belief about religions, but not that it's a religion itself.

Atheists can "worship the self", but they can also worship selflessness, or duty to society, or duty to humanity as a whole. Or anything else, really. In fact, most atheists don't worship anything at all.

 

You just proved me right.

You just went through all the definitions, including offering speculative nonesense to reality of the statement, "we have no idea how or if the universe will end," and proved me right.

You offer a rebuttal to every point atheists routinely make, blissfully unaware of the changing stature of each of the statements and teh logical support claims that must then be evident in atheism and end with:

So, what is atheism?

Whatever the hell an atheist says, as long as its the opposite of what a Christian says!

It is funcationally self worship bereft of standards - just like I said.

 

Again you act as if all atheists think the same thing. I find the argument that atheism is JUST no belief in God pretty annoying because it ignores the over-arching foundation that holds up atheism and many other things.

I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus, in the Loch Ness Monster, in Ghosts, in Bigfoot, in alien visitors, in the Illuminati, in vampires, in fortune telling, in psychic powers, in lie-detector tests, in homeopathic medicine, in magic, in the power of prayer etc..........

Atheism is merely one example.

 

You do.

You believe in whatever the hell you want to, particularly if it beats up on Christians.

A good idea, can be defined and can garner consensus to advance, and indeed that is exactly what atheism is doing.

Only each atheist wants to be able to reject anything (pretty much everything) so they can run around telling people how stupid they are and when the examination of their beliefs begins in response ... well, no atheist actually believes any of the things they routinely state.

It really is self worship, a religion where YOU are above everyone else and evidence is irrelevant because you aren't claiming that or any other damb thing - except you are.

Why do people chose atheism as a religion?

 

Irrelevant and meaningless drivel. What kind of victory do you find in a discussion about other people's beliefs when you fail to actually understand them?

We have good educated guesses, however. And a big crunch does not seem to be supported by the evidence. Heat death seems more likely given the evidence at hand today. Your argument is a bit like a shooter saying "well, I don't really know where that bullet is going to hit, because something could fly into it and change its direction."

Sure, yeah, something sudden and dramatic could happen to reverse the universe's expansion, but we have no evidence to suggest that it will. Predictions about the future always have that implied ", unless something changes." The big crunch theory usually proposed is that gravity will be sufficient to pull the universe back together, but evidence isn't supporting that theory. The only way a big crunch is going to happen is some major dramatic shift in the universe and the laws of physics.

Meaningless. You pretend to have knowledge, but you don't.

A set of individuals who do not have a belief in deities. Nothing more, nothing less.

Setting up another straw man? I've defined atheism for you. I've told you what it means. An atheist can agree with a Christian all he wants, as long as he does not agree with that Christian about god's existence. An atheist can believe whatever the hell he wants, and he'll still be an atheist if he does not believe in deities. He can believe that jesus walked on water, that he turned water to wine, and cured the blind. The only thing he can't believe is that jesus was the son of god, because if he believes there is a god, he's not an atheist anymore.

How much time does the typical atheist spend thinking about religion? Probably not very much. He certainly doesn't define himself by disagreeing with Christians. He defines his own philosophy, and if that disagrees with Christianity, he will argue with Christians.

It is functionally whatever the individual atheist believes, as long as he doesn't believe in deities. You demean the term 'worship' with these games. It is absurd to claim that it is self-worship because a person believes what he believes. It is not self worship for a person to decide for himself that he will live for society rather than the self. Worship is something more than believing something to be valuable. It means living your life for something.

Your "self worship" absurdity is completely unable to explain stoic atheists.

 

And yet there are atheists right here in this forum extolling the virtues of Buddhism which does have both higher and ower diety concepts.

Atheist is just self worship.

You offer nothing but rebuttal, even as you come to agree with my assesment. Atheism is whatever ...

Total subjectivity, total unaccounatbility to any standards .... because its whatever you say it is.

Unfortunately, there are atheists right here in this forum violating its ONE precept, and ... no atheists will challenge even that!

Its just the religion of ME!

 

Projection. Belief in God IS self worship as God is merely a manifestation out of the minds of those who believe in him.

 

I don't beat up on Christians. I merley think you are mistaken. You have a persecution complex.

Scepticism is merely the desire not to be scammed.

 

Athiest - as a group if there were a percentage taken, do not like sciencd that doesn't suit their own agenda...

God is God. But, religion seeks others and is a group. Every religion I know is based on group participation.

 

I think you should tell the truth on how you "treat" other who do not hold your own views...

 

No, you've advocated the Jesus Myth among others, and many of your claims of our faith are deeply misleading.

Of course, you are just being skeptical when you keep making claims over and over and over that are repeatedly shown to be out of step with the reality of Christianity.

Skepticism toward others, but never the self. And when people criticise you? Well, now your are victim of someone with a persecution complex. There is never an acknoweldgement of fault or inaccuracy when all you have to do is blame others emotionalism for your own.

Nice faith. Notice the trend of a total ack of standards and accountability?

Others see it too :wave:

 

Stem cell research, gay marriage, and intelligent design are just a few examples.

I admit abortion can be a tough one. Though without trying to start a discussion on abortion, the pro-choicers do have evidence of biology on their side. Not that that will change opposing opinion.

Never claimed that they couldn't.

Strawman. No, I am not claiming all Christians are fundamentalist creationists, nor is that relevant. It doesn't matter how many believe it. Even if it were only one crazy dude trying to get creationism taught as science, that's still enough for others to fight back and oppose it.

But it is there - I've given several examples. Others have done the same.

There are even some fundamentalist Christians that literally want to turn the US into a Christian theocracy. No, I am not claiming that all Christians agree with this, or even a majority. But as long as there are people that advocate these things, others will fight back against it, and I will be among them.

 

"..out of the minds.." ... "manifestation"... WOW! Look below at my signature line...

I sure do believe that you are suggesting that 'God' has 'manifested' in some way that is no-longer associated as a mere imagination, or a 'creature of the mind', or an 'illusion', or a 'fairy tale'. In fact, it seems that you are saying that God does manifest His being to "those who believe in him".

Keep in mind that you did specify 'out of the minds' meaning that 'God' was in the minds of those who believe, but then 'God' came out of the minds and became manifest.

Truly outstanding kmisho. Thank you.

 

What is this supposed to teach me? People who like bungee jumping are likely to tell other people "Bungee jumping is great! You should try it!" Some of them will try it and some won't. Some who try it will like it, and some won't. Religion is the same except it sells God instead of bungee jumping. But...

You won't find many people who insist that bungee jumping is good for everyone and propose that those who don't are somehow broken or even evil. You won't find many who advocate passing laws to force everyone to take up bungee jumping. Yet this happens very often in religion.

So there is some kind of difference between selling God and selling bungee jumping. What exactly is that difference? Whatever it is, that is what I oppose.