Is atheism a mental disorder?

[Dos Equis]

Not if you have Christianity shoved down  your throat from day one.

How has Christianity been shoved down your throat? 

[MCWAY]

How has Christianity been shoved down your throat? 

Ask him that question tomorrow, when Good Friday starts.

 

BTW, be sure to check out "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?", which usually airs around this time on any network that carried the Coral Ridge Hour. Again, I'm not sure how (or if) they still air this special, since Dr. D. James Kennedy died back in 2007.

In the event, you don't catch it then, you can always go to YouTube, courtesy of my thread, with the same title.

With Passover starting, I'd be remissed if I didn't mention another of my favorite broadcasts, based on the very reason for that holiday, in the first place, The Ten Commandments, usually aired Resurrection/Easter Sunday on ABC.

[Necrosis]

The people of the Middle East are no more dangerous than were those of ATHEISTIC Russia, under Joseph Stalin. Should atheism be cast away, based on the amount of bodies he racked up, under his regime?


This has nothing to do with Intelligent Design or evolution. But, since you want to bring it up, evolution is based on materialism/atheism, just as Creation has its Judeo-Christian roots. Both are based on philosophical/religious belief. From the earliest proponents to those of the 21st century, evolutionists have adhere to this for one simple underlying reason: It fits their philosophic mindset and end-goal, an explanation for life on earth WITHOUT any deference to a Supreme Being.

One evolutionist (and he is hardly alone) even stated, in no uncertain terms, that he believe in evolution (specifically a once-proported but now-dimissed tenet, spontaneous generation), because if he did not, the only option that remained was that of supernatural Creation, which had undesirable philosophic implications. Many of his colleagues felt the same way.

As for your blubbering about people not listening to contradictory views, I'm afraid that falls on a number of evolutionists, too, who among other things, got un-nerved when a certain organization opened its Creation Museum in Kentucky, some even resorting to filing frivolous lawsuits (bleating about "separation of church and state", despite the fact that PRIVATE FUNDS were used to build the place).

Or, take evolutionists like Eugenie Scott, who have gone so far as to suggest that scientists who believe in Creation be stripped of their Ph.Ds or not be given such in the first place. Left up to her, folks like Dr. Ben Carson (one of the greatest neuosurgeons on this planet, most recently celebrated during "Black History Month) wouldn't be able to practice medicine, not because he lacks competence or ability, but simply due to his belief that there is a God and that He created this world.

Then, there's the guy who fired in Massachusetts, Dr. Nathaniel Abraham, simply because he expressed his views on Creation, which didn't sit too well with his evolution-believing (and perhaps atheistic) boss.

Based on a number of your posts, YOU are every bit as "dangerous" as you purport people of faith to be. You ridicule and insult those who don't agree with your godless mindset. Who's to say that you wouldn't use force to impose your will onto others, should you and those of your ilk gain the might and the muscle to do so, having failed to make your case with all of your "logic" and "reason" (I refer you again to one Joseph Stalin)?


Hardly!!! There are ebbs and flows to it. When/if the trend reverses, what's going to be your excuse for that?

I will not respond to the garbage you have posted above, you are being willingly ignorant and are disrespecting the men and woman who have spent there lives in academia so you could have a better life. Without evolution modern medicine would not exist. Your ignorant remarks show how little you know. I don't fear a god nor do i want to be godless. Shit i would like to live forever, in a paradise. But geuss what, there is no evidence of such and the thinking aligns itself with childish needs and wants when deconstructed. I wont beleive in something without evidence, until then i will say i dont know.


if you beleive in creationism and have a phd in biology then yes you should be stripped of your PHD. It has lost in court twice and proven to be non-scientific, to beleive it to be scientific while working in the field would comprimise work quality. Who would grant someone money who says that things just a happened or that the answer is an unknowable god, who is invisible. This fact would make inquiry impossible since we cant know, completely sabotaging progress in science and knowledge.

Look at francis collins, a stuanch chrstian and one of the leaders of the human genome, look at what he says about creationism. Sure you will get people on both sides, but just line up the evidence. Wait that was already done and you gusy failed twice. You guys lie, its a fact, creationists are liars. You lied about the text books used in the court case, half of the people wouldnt testify etc etc...

[Eisenherz]

Without evolution modern medicine would not exist. Your ignorant remarks show how little you know.

if you beleive in creationism and have a phd in biology then yes you should be stripped of your PHD. I .

Ok now I'm no creationist but this is seriously stupid.
 That "modern medicine wouldnt exist if it wasnt for evolution" is utterly rediculous.
 Evolution hasnt helped further science in anything, we would be just as advanced if we never knew of this THEORY.

You gotta get your facts straight.
I know people who have Ph.d's in biology/genetic engineering/Physics who are creationists, these are highly intelligent people who are great contributions to their field of science, saying that they should be stripped of their ph.d or that their beliefs hinder them is utter BS.

[MCWAY]

I will not respond to the garbage you have posted above, you are being willingly ignorant and are disrespecting the men and woman who have spent there lives in academia so you could have a better life. Without evolution modern medicine would not exist. Your ignorant remarks show how little you know. I don't fear a god nor do i want to be godless. Shit i would like to live forever, in a paradise. But geuss what, there is no evidence of such and the thinking aligns itself with childish needs and wants when deconstructed. I wont beleive in something without evidence, until then i will say i dont know.

The problem with that long-winded tirade of yours is that you aren't saying "I don't know". You are stating emphatically and with confidence that there is no God. And your issue is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

if you beleive in creationism and have a phd in biology then yes you should be stripped of your PHD. It has lost in court twice and proven to be non-scientific, to beleive it to be scientific while working in the field would comprimise work quality. Who would grant someone money who says that things just a happened or that the answer is an unknowable god, who is invisible. This fact would make inquiry impossible since we cant know, completely sabotaging progress in science and knowledge.

Work quality? Now, that's a laugh!!! Again, all of this posturing of yours is PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL and had nothing to do with science. I'm sure the people, helped by Dr. Ben Carson (the aforementioned great neurosurgeon) would vehemently disagree with your ridiculous position that he should be stripped of his Ph.D, simple because he believes in Creation. That would be especially true for those co-joined twins he separated and their parents.

Furthermore, this notion that people would stop scientific exploration and inquiry, because they believe in Creation (and thus, in God), is downright STUPID, especially based on the early men of science in the Western world, who make no secret about their religious beliefs. Did Drs. Carson, Abraham, or any other scientist like them stop their studies or pursuits? NO!!!

Look at francis collins, a stuanch chrstian and one of the leaders of the human genome, look at what he says about creationism. Sure you will get people on both sides, but just line up the evidence. Wait that was already done and you gusy failed twice. You guys lie, its a fact, creationists are liars. You lied about the text books used in the court case, half of the people wouldnt testify etc etc...

I can line up a host of liars from the evolutionists' side as well, like certain information, regarding so-called "missing links" allowed to stay in textbooks LLOOOOOOOONGGG after they were exposed as being frauds. Same holds true for certain embryonic drawings.

Then, of course, there's the aforementioned frivilous lawsuit by certain evolutionists, regarding a Creation museum. Come to think of it, didn't a certain HBO host try to sneak into that very same place, recording the displays there, and make a bunch claims that were utterly FALSE, regarding the exhibits there?

But, as I've said before, this is all about philosophy, not science.

[Necrosis]

The problem with that long-winded tirade of yours is that you aren't saying "I don't know". You are stating emphatically and with confidence that there is no God. And your issue is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

Work quality? Now, that's a laugh!!! Again, all of this posturing of yours is PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL and had nothing to do with science. I'm sure the people, helped by Dr. Ben Carson (the aforementioned great neurosurgeon) would vehemently disagree with your ridiculous position that he should be stripped of his Ph.D, simple because he believes in Creation. That would be especially true for those co-joined twins he separated and their parents.

Furthermore, this notion that people would stop scientific exploration and inquiry, because they believe in Creation (and thus, in God), is downright STUPID, especially based on the early men of science in the Western world, who make no secret about their religious beliefs. Did Drs. Carson, Abraham, or any other scientist like them stop their studies or pursuits? NO!!!


I can line up a host of liars from the evolutionists' side as well, like certain information, regarding so-called "missing links" allowed to stay in textbooks LLOOOOOOOONGGG after they were exposed as being frauds. Same holds true for certain embryonic drawings.

Then, of course, there's the aforementioned frivilous lawsuit by certain evolutionists, regarding a Creation museum. Come to think of it, didn't a certain HBO host try to sneak into that very same place, recording the displays there, and make a bunch claims that were utterly FALSE, regarding the exhibits there?

But, as I've said before, this is all about philosophy, not science.

you keep saying creation, is it creation or intelligent design. One is an alternative theory to evolution proposed to explain the diversity as well as the originof life with the answer being god, thus no further inquiry can be made. If you beleive in god you surely can make progress, the two are not mutually exclusive. But ID and beleiving in creation are not the same, refine your terminology.

You are trying to defend ID/creationism,you have lost in court twice, there is no defence, it is non-scientific. The creation museum has dinosaurs with humans saying that it occured, this is patently false.

It's about science, any phd in biology/evolutionary biology cannot believe in an alternate theory and progress in the field. They should pursue study in the field in which the theory they beleive exists. Its quite simple and logical. It's like not beleiving in thermodynamics yet being a cosmologist, you can't be as you don't agree with the tenats, thus you should look for an alternate theory but you should not be a practicing cosmologist, get it? It's not philosophical, why would anyone be allowed to work and use government money in a field of science they dont beleive in? it makes no sense. They should try to get funding for there theory like everyone else.

Just like everyone in expelled, creationist people lie. I like how they outline one guy as top in the field and was suddenly fired when he expoused his beliefs. HAHAHAH he hadn't gotten a grant for like ten years.

[big L dawg]

anyone that believes dinosaurs and people walked the earth at the same time lose all credibility.at that point debating with them is pointless as you might as well go talk to a sheep.

[Dos Equis]

I feel the same way about people who believe the government shot a missile into the Pentagon on 911, faked plane crashes, and secretly kidnapped and murdered passengers.  Might as well talk to a rock.   

[MCWAY]

you keep saying creation, is it creation or intelligent design. One is an alternative theory to evolution proposed to explain the diversity as well as the originof life with the answer being god, thus no further inquiry can be made. If you beleive in god you surely can make progress, the two are not mutually exclusive. But ID and beleiving in creation are not the same, refine your terminology.

You are trying to defend ID/creationism,you have lost in court twice, there is no defence, it is non-scientific. The creation museum has dinosaurs with humans saying that it occured, this is patently false.

Defend it from what? You are the one who claimed that any scientist who believes in Creation should be stripped of his Ph.D. And, you continue to make the erroneous and utterly FOOLISH assertion that scientific inquiry is stopped, if one believes in God.

It's about science, any phd in biology/evolutionary biology cannot believe in an alternate theory and progress in the field. They should pursue study in the field in which the theory they beleive exists. Its quite simple and logical. It's like not beleiving in thermodynamics yet being a cosmologist, you can't be as you don't agree with the tenats, thus you should look for an alternate theory but you should not be a practicing cosmologist, get it? It's not philosophical, why would anyone be allowed to work and use government money in a field of science they dont beleive in? it makes no sense. They should try to get funding for there theory like everyone else.

Scientists can pursue any field they see fit. You can have biologists who believe in Creation (and we do), neurosurgeons who believe in Creation (and we do), the list continues.

Your ridiculous points continue to rear their ugly heads. Being a cosmologist and the laws of thermodynamics have absolutely does NOT require a rejection of Creation, especially since one of its proponents believed in Creation, namely Sir Issac Newton.

[Necrosis]

Defend it from what? You are the one who claimed that any scientist who believes in Creation should be stripped of his Ph.D. And, you continue to make the erroneous and utterly FOOLISH assertion that scientific inquiry is stopped, if one believes in God.

Scientists can pursue any field they see fit. You can have biologists who believe in Creation (and we do), neurosurgeons who believe in Creation (and we do), the list continues.

Your ridiculous points continue to rear their ugly heads. Being a cosmologist and the laws of thermodynamics have absolutely does NOT require a rejection of Creation, especially since one of its proponents believed in Creation, namely Sir Issac Newton.

you are being willingly ignorant. I said and mean one cannot beleive in intelligent design/creationist science and pursue science. Evolution and ID are mutually exclusive, you cant be an evolutionist and beleive in ID, they are seperate theories.

you either cannot comprehend my examples or are creating straw men deliberately. You can beleive in creation and do as issac did and try and figure out how god did it. You cannot however, believe ID and evolution.

creation or beleiving in god is fine, many religious scientists do this all the time. When you bring an omipotent, invisible, omniscient being into a theory you have become unscientific by defition. You cannot measure, calculate or predict god in a theory, or miracles.


You cannot have a scientist who beleives in ID as a scietific theory, it has been proven to be nothing more then religion, twice. If they continue to perceive it as such i truly question that persons logic and rationality, perhaps there is a conflict of interest?

so stop comparing ID to creation, and if you want to continue to do so, provide a definition of creation please so we can be on the same level, as it is obvious you are not understanding me.

[big L dawg]

I feel the same way about people who believe the government shot a missile into the Pentagon on 911, faked plane crashes, and secretly kidnapped and murdered passengers.  Might as well talk to a rock.   

ok....not sure what that has to do with the thread but....ok.

[Necrosis]

I feel the same way about people who believe the government shot a missile into the Pentagon on 911, faked plane crashes, and secretly kidnapped and murdered passengers.  Might as well talk to a rock.   

so you beleive dinos and humans co-existed?

[Eisenherz]

so you beleive dinos and humans co-existed?

Foot prints have been found together.
And you are assuming they no longer exist, animals from the "pre historic era" still exist.

[Dos Equis]

ok....not sure what that has to do with the thread but....ok.

Same thing dinosaurs have to do with the thread. 

[Dos Equis]

so you beleive dinos and humans co-existed?

Not what I said, but yes that's what I believe. 

[Necrosis]

Not what I said, but yes that's what I believe. 

so you deny archeological evidence, dating methods etc?

you know kent hovind was lying when he talked about the dating methods being wildly inaccurate right? he is a liar and is in jail. Or do you have some other reason for believing this despite all the evidence to the contrary. All of cosmolgy would have to be wrong as well as the universe would have a different age, so i geuss we got the speed of light, the redshift etc wrong also....


it suprises me that you would believe something like this despite evidence to the contrary.,

[Dos Equis]

so you deny archeological evidence, dating methods etc?

you know kent hovind was lying when he talked about the dating methods being wildly inaccurate right? he is a liar and is in jail. Or do you have some other reason for believing this despite all the evidence to the contrary. All of cosmolgy would have to be wrong as well as the universe would have a different age, so i geuss we got the speed of light, the redshift etc wrong also....


it suprises me that you would believe something like this despite evidence to the contrary.,

Who is Kent Hovind? 

I believe in the Biblical story of the creation of life on earth, intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it. 

IMO, macroevolution doesn't make sense; there are too many holes.  I've read several books that reinforced my beliefs, including "Darwin's Black Box" and most of "Billions of Missing Links."  I created a thread about Billions of Missing Links and will update it one of these days. 

[big L dawg]

so you deny archeological evidence, dating methods etc?

you know kent hovind was lying when he talked about the dating methods being wildly inaccurate right? he is a liar and is in jail. Or do you have some other reason for believing this despite all the evidence to the contrary. All of cosmolgy would have to be wrong as well as the universe would have a different age, so i geuss we got the speed of light, the redshift etc wrong also....


it suprises me that you would believe something like this despite evidence to the contrary.,

Like I said..theres no point man.you see the reasoning skills were dealing with here?Once simple logic and basic common sense are out of the equation theres no point.No chance of rational thought or discussion.

[Joel_A]

Like I said..theres no point man.you see the reasoning skills were dealing with here?Once simple logic and basic common sense are out of the equation theres no point.No chance of rational thought or discussion.

yep.



*On a lighter note, saw Bill Maher live last night. Awesome show. Can't believe the number of 'closet atheists' around my 'hood. It's very encouraging.

[tonymctones]

the idea that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive is ignorant, there are plenty of ppl who believe in creation and also evolution, charles darwin being a very important one.

[tonymctones]

Who is Kent Hovind? 

I believe in the Biblical story of the creation of life on earth, intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it. 

IMO, macroevolution doesn't make sense; there are too many holes.  I've read a several books that reinforced my beliefs, including "Darwin's Black Box" and most of "Billions of Missing Links."  I created a thread about Billions of Missing Links and will update it one of these days. 

weve had discussions about this in the past beach, have you ever actually taken an objective look at evolution? I dont mean books serving agendas i mean taking a look at the concept evidence for it and made an educated decision?

Do you not believe in modern dating techniques?

[Necrosis]

the idea that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive is ignorant, there are plenty of ppl who believe in creation and also evolution, charles darwin being a very important one.

ID and evolution are opposing theories.

if you mean creationism as in god did create each species seperatlly then you are still wrong, as evoulution talks about common descent.

[Necrosis]

the idea that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive is ignorant, there are plenty of ppl who believe in creation and also evolution, charles darwin being a very important one.

your people should define "creation" also. Is it god wound it up and started it all then left it to chaos, or he plays a roll in active creation and in day to day life. Or are you actually talking about creation science/ID which is no doubt mutually exclusive with evolution.

[tonymctones]

ID and evolution are opposing theories.

if you mean creationism as in god did create each species seperatlly then you are still wrong, as evoulution talks about common descent.

you should probably understand that creationism and ID dont go hand in hand either.

your people should define "creation" also. Is it god wound it up and started it all then left it to chaos, or he plays a roll in active creation and in day to day life. Or are you actually talking about creation science/ID which is no doubt mutually exclusive with evolution.

My people? creation could mean a whole host of things basically what it boils down to is that we were created by a higher power, that definition work for you?

[Necrosis]

you should probably understand that creationism and ID dont go hand in hand either.

My people? creation could mean a whole host of things basically what it boils down to is that we were created by a higher power, that definition work for you?

i do understand the difference between the two however, posters in this thread do not apparently.

that definition is fine, but it wont work once abiogenesis is a completed theory.