theinformationparadox.com — Response to an article regarding Atheism being morally bankrupt. Sadly, theism produces ethically bankrupt individuals who see no problem trampling on the rights of others in their quest for approval from their chosen mythological leader.
Jan 19, 2009 View in Crawl 4
omgscienceJan 20, 2009
To worship some man in the clouds in insanity. To work on a new scientific breakthrough to better mankind now that is divine. Your "gods" are dead get over it. You are now free to evolve.
poonchowJan 21, 2009
The reason theists are labeled as delusional is because they tend to follow a set of tenets, whereas atheists tend to explain their system with logic. Although there are cases where theists can use logic to explain their beliefs, and there are cases where atheists form beliefs without using logic. We are all human.
dustin00Jan 22, 2009
Atheism has no morals, and thus, cannot be bankrupt.Atheism has ethics.From what I've seen demonstrated by religious leaders, they have neither.
mazdamxJan 22, 2009
Constantine ruled in 300. All of the biblical writings had been completed by then. You still havent shown me a mistake in the Bible?Do no harm is hardly the message of the bible. Here is what the bible says are the two most important teachings:Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." Our job is not to convert anyone. Only the lord can change the hearts and minds of people. Our job is to live our lives according to the two commandments above. I dont disagree with the corruption, it has been in the catholic church. But if a police officer or judge disrespects his/her office, does that mean that all law enforcement officers are corrupt? And I agree with you. I try not to f**k up other peoples day. I try to live according to the golden rule of the bible. But according to your statement, f**king up someones days is subjective to what you believe will f**k up someones day. So what I think might f**k up your day might be different that what you think will f**k up your day. Then we are living by our own sets of morals and thats what leads to a really f**ked up day :)There is a place in religion for everyone, you just have to be open to the teachings. God is rebuilding his temple here on earth as he promised, but its not in Jerusalem, its with us, the living stones and with christ as the cornerstone. If you are not interested in religion thats fine, but if you truly want answers, try to prove it wrong, thats when you will find the truth.
mazdamxJan 22, 2009
Darwinism and Creationism are both theories with evidence to support them. I think there is more evidence for Creation. Read some of my comments above and let me know what your questions are. You asked what obserable evidence there is. Creation Evidence - A Few Brief Examples: * Lack of Transitional Fossils. Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record. * Lack of a Natural Mechanism. Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far. * Time Constraints. Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is at all possible, there needs to be an excessive (if not infinite) amount of time. For much of the 20th century, it was thought evolutionists had all the time they needed. If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments to have occurred, the age was pushed back in the textbooks. In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities. * Unacceptable Model of Origins. The Big Bang Theory is the accepted source of Origins among the majority of Evolutionists, and is taught in our public schools. However, the Big Bang does not explain many things, including the uneven distribution of matter that results in "voids" and "clumps," or the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, "where did everything come from?" Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?
cmallinsonJan 23, 2009
mazdamx, here are your answers. Why do I bother?"Explain to me why there are not half man/half monkey if that is what we evolved from. Does evolution magically skip the middle." No it didn't skip the middle. Species branch off all the time. We didn't evolve FROM monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor."Explain to me the sedimentary geological layer that was mentioned in my comment above." I'm not a geologist, but the people who are geologists don't seem to be flocking to church, do they? There have been numerous catastrophic events in the past few billions of years that would lead to abnormal sedimentary layers containing more fossils than usual."Explain to me why one of the biggest persecutors of Christianity suddenly turned christian (saul/paul)." I really don't know, but I expect he "turned" Christian for the same reason every Christian does - because someone convinced him that Jesus was God."Christs apostles had confirmation from the resurrection, otherwise they would have not died for a lie. If it was not true, these people would not have given up their lives." The 9/11 Hijackers gave their lives too. Is that proof of anything? Believing something does not make it true. They did not have confirmation - they could not even agree on Jesus' last words."Why is it the year 2008? A man so influential lived 2008 years ago and everyone in the world could reference time off of him. There has not been a man before or since of that magnitude." - It's 2009. Sorry, couldn't resist. We use that year because Christianity is a huge part of our history, and that is what our calendar was based on. I celebrate Christmas too. "One man fulfilled over 300 prophesies in books written well before his time." - That's pure BS. 99% of those are so vague that I could have predicted them. Besides, since the accounts of his life were second or third hand at best and don't even agree on many things, they could have made his fulfill as many prophesies as they wanted."How come there is no dispute of Jesus resurrection in writing? Dont you think someone would have documented what happened to his body or even asked the question?" There's no dispute of the resurrection of Elvis either. What do you say to the fact that the entire story of Jesus is so incredibly similar to the fables, and stories from several cultures long before he was said to have lived, including the resurrection after 3 days?"I didnt know in my heart until I researched for my mind. Keep researching if you truly want to know the answers." And you should keep researching too, with real books that have facts in them.Send me any question and i will answer it for you.
designerutahDec 2, 2009
If looked at historically, Christianity is about:-promoting itself, even to the point of killing others or denying them freedom to live their lives-accruing wealth-accruing political power-acting divisively-trying to force it's belief onto everyone else while claiming to love everyoneBased on judging Christianity by it's works, real Christianity is a social plague. Now, individual Christians on the other hand, can be judged on their actions and found to be Christ-like. I know that's what you mean, but Christianity seems to be largely defined by organized religions that are Christian, and they are a social plague.