Atheist Threat
Oct 10th, 2008, in News, by Patung
Young atheists on the internet, and eradicating atheism and communism in Indonesia.
Governor of North Sumatra, Syamsul Arifin, said on 8th October at an occasion marking Pancasila Day that all elements of the nation must continually fight against and eradicate atheist beliefs among the people.
Atheism, which seeks to erase Pancasila and which once threatened the nation in the guise of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), and still does, has to be guarded against, particularly because it still finds support among sections of the poor.
Syamsul said children should be taught from primary school through to university to hate atheism, so that the creed could as far as possible be obliterated.
A 4th ‘T’ – Rakyat tidak ateis.
The butchery of the atheist-PKI backed murderers of the September 30 Movement of 1965 (G30S PKI) could not be allowed to happen again, he said, hence the need to struggle against atheism. beritasore
Young Internet Atheists
On the internet at least some Indonesians seem happy to declare themselves as unbelievers.
Running an “affiliation” search on the social network site Friendster.com for “atheist” brings up about 144 matches friendster.com, while “ateis” produces 185 odd results friendster.com, although more than a few seem to be claiming to be atheist as some kind of joke.
On the same site, created on January 23rd, 2007 is the “Atheist Indonesia” group friendster.com, with 76 members and a fairly active message board, and some of its members seem to be active in an Indonesian language Atheist Wikipedia. ateisindonesia.wikidot.com
1,311 Comments on “Atheist Threat”
-
ET says:
@ Patrick
@ET – Interesting point of view you have concerning the evolution of the mind. Do you speak of a real evolution (change through natural selection or change through the accumulation of knowledge over the centuries?).
I mean both. Ideas and practices that once were considered normal – like slavery – have been or are in the process of being abolished and replaced with social structures that are more adapted to the development of modern socio-economic environments. I would call this also a form of natural selection.
-
Oigal says:
Laugh..
“Can you show step-up evolution? Plenty of examples of horizontal evolution and step down evolution but what about step up”
Are you serious? You want me to explain evolution to you now? Come on Patrick, there are literally millions of text books, films explaining step by step for you and all at differing levels of complexity. I am sure you could find at least one to suit your level of current understanding.
”I am the LORD your God, You shall have no other gods before Me.
@Oigal – The Bible and the Quoran seem to agree on that first one so what was your point exactly?
Ah come on Patrick, is it possible to apply just a little intellectual honesty in your posts?
You stated the “holy book” the unchanging truth and moral guide for us poor sinners, now ignoring the fact you have just stated that you have written off half the world’s population as morally destitute because they happen to believe in a couple more or one less god than you. The question is and remains which holy book then, Old testament, New Testament, Koran, Bible, which interpretation, Catholic, Protestant, CoE?.
Additionally I take then you are saying that both the Koran and Bible (version?) are equally valid as guides to the moral man inside. Interestingly, I can only assume that you concur with the Koran’s view (being the later version) that Christians are misguided and really should convert to get the full benefit of the big guy’s ultimate retirement plan.
Patrick, I do so enjoy your logic (?) it never fails to raise a smile. -
sighjay says:
And then there is this:
most scientists quite blindly believe in evolution but there is a growing body of evidence to refute most of Evolution Theory
The idea that the greatest scientific minds of our time are unaware of this growing body of evidence, whilst Patrick has the inside track on this is the funniest thing I’ve read in ages. Seriously, Patrick, I mean….
-
Patrick says:
@ Sighjay – When I was a kid, if we disagreed with someone, or even if we disliked what they said, we often replied “I may disagree with what you are saying and I may even hate the thought you expressed but I will fight to the death for your right to say it”. That was democracy then and now we have evolved into Sighjay and Oigal. Only what they say is right. This is the Euro man or as we New Yorkers say, in our sarcastic way, the Euro-trash!
You see folk Charles Darwin was a racist who believed that evolution bestowed Caucasians with superior intelligence genes for survival against the other races found on earth or as they say”people with color” These are the very same European intellectuals who colonized most of the 3rd world and they in their superior 0peratus monde mode sought to pilfer, plumage and rape your lands and people. They are the people who brought the world two world wars, Nazi Germany (master race), Fascist Spain & Italy and Communist Russia. Now they gather in places like Brussels and Copenhagen to tell every nation that their idea of Global warming is caused by the “Carbon Footprint” of man and is not being caused naturally and dismiss any argument, no matter how well presented, as utter nonsense. Even when they are caught red handed with altering data to favor their “fact” of carbon print global warning they arrogantly carry-on as business as usual. They live in an increasingly godless Europe, a truly dying continent of spiritless, cowardly people thrown together into an economic union known as the EEC. They send their few soldiers to join with the USA to fight against Islamic Fascism but instead hunker down in their barracks to mainly let the USA and the British and the Eastern Europeans to do most of the fighting. It would be almost comedic, if it wasn’t so pathetic. The true irony of their arrogance is that they are a slowly dying race as they now have too few children to replace the previous generations and they have allowed guests workers from Africa, the Middle east and Asia to come in and prosper. These Europeans will soon be extinct and the God fearing Muslims, will one day in the future, have their lands and property. I wonder what Charles Darwin would have to say about that?
-
Laugh..
Patrick, I do love your convoluted, confused rants but you should really seek professional help. Still waiting on the good book we should be referring to as the one unchanging truth and moral guide Patrick. I am assuming by your rant it’s not the Islamic one?
Come on, show a bit of courage. It was your call to throw that out there, lets follow up.
Do you mind if I recap as your last post was a tad confusing even for you. I am now the cause of both world wars, abortions, climate warming fraud, Nazis, fascists, communists and to top it all off I don’t have sex enough? Not to mention I am Euro Trash..mmm. You must be a hoot at dinner parties ?You see folk Charles Darwin was a racist who believed that evolution bestowed Caucasians with superior intelligence
this is racist yet in Patrick’s world
they have allowed guests workers from Africa, the Middle east and Asia to come in and prosper.
This is not? I assume you are saying this is bad thing, hard to tell rant from the rave.
Sorry I would love to play some more but busy today…you know how hard it is for us Eurotrash…and its time for us to vote for the new world government and squeeze some more cash out of those silly yanks 🙂
Do tell Patrick, how can you have such an issue with the Muslims, after all the one true God and all. Their book was printed later than your version (an update if you will), so it must be right. Oh and do explain to us the Catholic Church’s position on the Nazi germany (You have to love the letter of congrats sent by the Pope to Hitler). Also on unchanging morality are we still killing jews for the murder of Christ or have we moved on, its so hard to keep up with the unchanging morality of the religious types.
To fair, I am only teasing you. My cousin is a preacher, she and her wife are very content spreading the unchanged gospel to the faithful.
-
You see folk Charles Darwin was a racist who believed that evolution bestowed Caucasians with superior intelligence genes for survival against the other races found on earth or as they say”people with color”
Rolling out the cliches are we Patrick? Not only are you absolutely wrong on this, but even if you were right, how does that change the science that has developed over the 150 years since The Origin was published. Just because you say so doesn’t make it so, and the reason I’m both sarcastic and angry is because people like you are not only ill-informed and arrogant, you pose a huge danger to the human race. I have a right to be angry and sarcastic.
You last post was racist & offensive on so many levels I’m not going to bother to respond point by point, other than to say if, as Einstein thought, god is the wonder and study natural forces (not the phantom fairy in the sky you are subservient to), then you seem to be godless far beyond the Europeans and the men of science you so despise.
-
Janma says:
Abortion is a very sensitive topic and it brings out lots of emotion. However, let’s not forget that in 18 days a beating heart can be detected so we are talking about a life seperate from the mothers. Many women who partake in abortion have post psychological difficulties. The Los Angeles Times (a fairly liberal newspaper) reported 56% of the women surveyed reported feeling guilty and 26% regretted having an abortion. Lots of things are on the books as crimes and people still do them so does that make them right?
at 18 days there is no life seperate from the mothers patrick. take away mummy and baby cannot survive.
-
Fawzia says:
Hi Patrick,
The true irony of their arrogance is that they are a slowly dying race as they now have too few children to replace the previous generations and they have allowed guests workers from Africa, the Middle east and Asia to come in and prosper. These Europeans will soon be extinct and the God fearing Muslims, will one day in the future, have their lands and property. I wonder what Charles Darwin would have to say about that?
I have a great suspicion now that you’re simply a troll & I’m so sorry that I wasted so much time replying to you & to that other troll Md. Elijah, who spouts similar rubbish, only its Islamic rubbish in his case.
Well, sorry for you, again your rubbish is incorrect.
You know I was born in Iran, & my country Iran has a measly birthrate of 1.7 children per woman, although its officially a theocracy, 98% Muslim statistically & ruled by one of the most repressive religious regimes.
Its still producing so few children, and our birthrate has collapsed under the theocracy.Also, Iranians in some Western nations have even fewer kids that white, non believing Muslimahs-for eg in Norway, Norwegian white “feminazi”( 😉 ) women have 1.8 children, Iranian women have 1.6.
Exactly like European Catholics, once famed for high breeding produce so few kids in Spain or Italy, while the godless Scandinavians make all the babies. 😉
The highest birthrate in Europe is currently in France & Iceland, both of which aren’t particularly religious nations, both have many atheists & agnostics.
France has immigrants coming in from mainly two nations-Muslim Algeria & Tunisia, which were its colonies. Well, both Algeria & Tunisia have birthrates lower than France, Tunisia has only 1.73 children per woman, Algeria has 1.89.
Algeria had decades of terrorist trouble from Islamists, because of all that religion inspired violence, its birthrates collapsed, exactly like Iranian birthrates collapsed under a repressive theocracy.
Muslim majority tiny Lebanon, another nation wrecked by Islamist violence, also saw its birthrates fall to less than 2 kids per woman, while New Zealand, one of the world’s least religious nations, has 2.2 children per woman.
In Netherlands, Muslim Turks are also sub replacement, Dutch women have 1.75 children, Turkish women 1.9, barely any difference.
You sir, have been reading too many Eurabia books, along with too much of the Bible, which has understandeably rotted your brain.
Yes ther are indeed some Muslim nations which are breeding like sewer rats, like there are some African Christian nations, but those are hardly models worth emulating.
Sure, Pakistani, Somali etc women in Europe have many kids-but I don’t think genital mutilations, jihadi bombings & honor killings are likeable stuff, even if they keep birthrates high. 😉
Likewise, Christian African nations too are breeding fast, indeed the Christian South of Africa breeds more than the Muslim north, but I don’t think outlawing all condoms like Christians do ultimately help, since all the new people are going to die with AIDS. Muslim African Tunisia’s policy of making birth control widely available & extremely low AIDS rates seems preferable to me.
One can’t breed fast indefinitely under repressive religious regimes, soon the people tire of the faith & stop breeding like my Iran, or simply become more secular like Italy.
Its best to learn from secular fast breeders like Iceland & New Zealand.
-
Patrick,
For my amusement, I will try to help you oppose or outlaw abortion based on Darwinist theories, rather than religious theories. I dislike abortion as well, although I don’t believe in Allah\God.
As an atheist I am probably all caught up in the “THEORY of Evolution” first brought forth by Charles Darwin. This means “survival of the fittest” and as an atheist, if I look at the animal kingdom, that means my survival is paramount to any other person’s survival. If I apply this same logic to human beings why would I care if someone wants to abort their baby? Can I care morally? If yes, whose morals apply? If being an atheist means being free from any supernatural power than am I not my own morality base? If that is correct than how can we run a society of like minded individuals if each person decides alone his own morality?
Nope, it means that my genes’s survival is paramount, thus giving up my life, or putting myself into inconvenience is a worthwhile activity as long as my genes survive, in the form of my children, siblings etc.
Thus, even according to strict Darwinistic atheism, the purpose of life should be to reproduce, a “fit” woman is one who maximizes her reproductive potential, rather than one who “selfishly” or childlessly whiles away her life.
Thus, a true Darwinist woman wouldn’t abort her fetus, because that fetus would become a child, have children of his\her own, thus that woman’s survival, which is paramount according to Darwinism would be fulfilled if she does not abort, rather than if she aborts.
Also, a Darwinist woman will try to have the maximum number of children she can afford to feed & raise to adulthood with the resources at her disposal, and in wealthy Western societies, this means that the welfare system would enable her to have many children.
As her genes’ survival is paramount, more children means more potential grandchildren, so the athesit Darwinist woman shoud try to maximize the number of children she produces, rather than abort.
The true irony of their arrogance is that they are a slowly dying race as they now have too few children to replace the previous generations and they have allowed guests workers from Africa, the Middle east and Asia to come in and prosperThese Europeans will soon be extinct and the God fearing Muslims, will one day in the future, have their lands and property. I wonder what Charles Darwin would have to say about that?
Charles Darwin would say that these Europeans are not applying his theory properly, simple. 😉
If they did apply it in their lives, they’d be having far more kids than they do now.As the survival of their genes would be paramount to them under Darwinism, they’d ensure that they have more kids than others so that more of their genes survive.
Also, they’d try to outproduce Africans, Mid easterners & Asians to ensure that children carrying their genes are the biggest group in future generations.
A European woman would not only have more children herself, she’d also encourage her siblings, cousins & even other people distantly related to have more children, she’d encourage her children to have more children so that she’s grandma to a dozen, great grandma to three dozens & so on.She’d abhor abortion as that means that she loses some of her future genes.
That would be the natural result of applying Darwinism. 😉
I’m sure when you’re confronted with Christian atrocities from the past or present, you respond with, “They were not true Christians!” ie they were not Christ like, lemme tell you as a Darwinist then, the aborting, childfree women aren’t true Darwinists either! 😉
Just explained all this coz I’m bored.
-
@Sighjay – please note below that an increasing number of scientist are skeptics of the Theory of Evolution and from many countries, fields and disciplines:
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
This was last publicly updated August 2008. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
Philip Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS
Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences
Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic
K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science
Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences
M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India)
Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry
Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)
Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University
Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel)
Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK)
Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University
David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of American Physical Society
Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University
John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi
Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of Washington) Texas A&M University
Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy Duke University
David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy)
Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Marcos N. Eberlin Professor, The State University of Campinas (Brazil) Member, Brazilian Academy of Science A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—1
http://WWW.DISCOVERY.ORG…………..
-
@Fawzia – Have you ever heard the expression that “figures never lie but liars know how to figure”? You try to present us with low birth statistics for North African Muslim immigrants into France as proof that I somehow conjured up the fantasy that Muslims are quickly increasing their numbers in Europe. What you forget is that as the European population continues to age, more immigrants, will be needed to support the economy and that combined with a slightly higher birth rate for Muslims in Europe will greatly increase the percenatges of Muslim in Europe. Here are some sources that support what I say and believe me there are many other sources besides these two;
“As a result of the increased immigration needed, the report predicts that Europe’s Muslim population is set to increase from around 13% today to between 22% and 37% of the population by 2025, potentially triggering tensions”. Source CIA report
“Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent”. Source Brookings Institute
Your argument concerning “survival of the fittest” suggests that you thinking more like an animal then a human being. I have no intention to insult you but usually when a woman chooses abortion she is aborting the baby on selfish grounds. i.e., my life is ahead of me and I cant have this baby now, need to to school, having too much fun, cannot afford it, etc. For thinking human beings this is pure Darwinism “survival of the fittest” and the baby is weaker so it is the baby who is eliminated at the choice of the mother.
P.s., You remind me very much of another young woman from India who used to post on IM. Wonder what happened to her?
-
@Jamna”…take away mummy and baby cannot survive”. Your referring to the fetus I believe? Let’s extend that logic to all children say under 3 years of age presuming others are not raising the child. How about all the way to tennager and beyond ha ha ha!
-
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
A honest person would have perhaps mentioned the Discovery Institute you refer to is a conservative non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design not some random selection of noteworthy scientists. A center point for drawing like thinking nutters to one place rather like rotting meat and flies.
the list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields. According to the National Science Foundation, there were approximately 955,300 biological scientists in the United States in 1999. The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community. Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that “99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution”.
The list has been criticized by many organizations and publications for lacking any true experts in the relevant fields of research, primarily biology. Critics have noted that of the 105 “scientists” listed on the original 2001 petition, fewer than 20% were biologists, with few of the remainder having the necessary expertise to contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the role of natural selection in evolution.
Do you wish me to list the number of people on your list who are not who they say they are or have since disavowed the nonsense.
Or this one
After the Discovery Institute presented the petition as part of an amicus curiae brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design court case in October 2005, a counter-petition, A Scientific Support For Darwinism, was organized and gathered 7733 signatures from scientists in four days.
Enough…people a simple google will tell you all need to know about this dodgy little list, do take the time to see the difference from what people claim to be and what they actually are.
Ignorance is a dangerous thing..
-
A honest person would have perhaps mentioned the Discovery Institute you refer to is a conservative non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design not some random selection of noteworthy scientists. A center point for drawing like thinking nutters to one place rather like rotting meat and flies.
Cheers Oigal, you saved me the trouble. Patrick, is blatant dishonesty a cornerstone of your religious beliefs? It very much seems so. You do yourself and your cause no favours by tossing cartoonish, long disproved as simply untrue, responses like that into the mix.
Ignorance is a dangerous thing..
Here’s a Xmas pressie from The Guardian for you, Patrick: 93% of Scientists are Atheists
-
Oh another thing Patrick, I would never support anything that says someone can’t hold a different point of view than myself or millions of others. Indeed, I know any number of people who have a number of things they take on “faith” yet they are content not try and push their belief as science. Personally, that faith means lack of reason but never the less, it is of course their right and all power to them if helps them sleep at night.
It is a different situation when someone tries to project that “faith” as scientific fact or indeed implies that everyone else who doesn’t share that lack a reason is somehow responsible for all the ills and evils of the world. Then that person or organsiation deserves to challenged and ridiculed as champion of nonsense.
Despite the fact, someone has called you troll. Please let me encourage you to keep posting :-). Troll or not, you are indeed a parody and I do so get a chuckle.
P.S. Still waiting on the one good book of unchanging morals we can follow and which particular sect has had it right all these years?
-
@Sighjay – you said “What utter nonsense. Yes I’m aware of the increasingly desperate attempts to revisit evolution by some crackpots but science and virtually all scientists working in palaeontology, biology or related fields regard it as established fact. Daily, evolution is supported by new evidence. I’m gonna buy into their minds rather than something derived from bizarre pre-iron age myths”.
I posted the list because its not wrong to challenge the Theory of Evolution because that’s what science should be doing and it’s a mystery to me why more scientists are not searching for truth? Your attacks on me personally and especially concerning my intelligence are nothing new for anyone who dares to pose questions that Evolution theory cannot answer. Explain to me how the first cell got started? I know you will say a chemical reaction so what 2 chemicals were responsible?
-
@Patrick:
Explain to me how the first cell got started? I know you will say a chemical reaction so what 2 chemicals were responsible?
You posted a thoroughly dishonest list. It’s widely known to be dishonest. I’m supposed to respect that? Sorry Patrick but you don’t get a pass on that. Where is your Christian honesty?
The first cell..really? You could start here and then move onto the volumes of scientific work that deal rather well with your question.
You really think you are asking some science shattering question? You don’t think that the odd brilliant mind or 5000, hasn’t grappled with any question might want to ask and found enough comfort in the the possible solution to satisfy their science, accepting of course, as scientists do, that new evidence which may cause science to revisit may come to light.
It’s called knowledge Patrick, and the the search to advance our knowledge. We don’t have all the answers yet, and yet we know so much more than we did ten years ago, twenty years ago, one hundred years back, two thousand years plus back, when the desert fairy tales that you call knowledge were written to try and explain to an ignorant illiterate people why we were here. Your fairy tales contain none of the answers to the things that man discovered through science in the millenniums since they were scrawled. Your all seeing god didn’t seem to have an understanding of the world beyond the too-ings and fro-ings of a bunch of desert tribes in a small corner of the world. Not of science, not of medicine, not of discovery. These things came from man, not fantasy gods borne of ignorance. That’s why I’m angry with you..you and your ilk preach the path of ignorance as the way forward.
And ignorance is the very dangerous enemy of mankind.
Look, believe whatever you want in the privacy, but don’t preach or enforce your ignorance on anyone else, not a child, not an adult and not a nation. Christians and other religions talk of their moral compass and yet to do so is the ultimate in immorality.
-
@ Sighjay – you said “We don’t have all the answers yet”
Yes, exactly and that why it’s still the “Theory of evolution” and not a fact!@Anyone – Think for yourselves. Find out the facts and various theories including Intelligent Design Theory and where there are not facts presented, don’t let someone tell you it is a fact when it is just a conclusion. And be especially wary of someone like SIGHJAY who declares another person dangerous simply because they question “Evoultion Theory”. I bet he cannot show examples of macro-evolution either since up until now they have not found the missing link. Let me give you a hint the “missing link” is Oigal!!!!!! Ha ha ha!
-
“…recent articles in The Wall Street Journal and Knight Ridder papers have described intelligent-design scientists at major universities (including Iowa State, the University of Minnesota and the University of Georgia). One National Public Radio story alone featured 18 intelligent-design scientists, though most “would not speak on the record for fear of losing their jobs..bs.” extracted from a letter to the NY Times
@Sighjay – why would scientists fear losing their jobs if they question the “Theory of Evolution”?
-
Yes, exactly and that why it’s still the “Theory of evolution” and not a fact!
I was going to say that you’re like an endless loop, an echo chamber from some dark abyss. Reason, rational thought and the sort of scientific process that now allows you to write vacuous cliches on a screen like this, to be read the world over, pass you by.
But no Patrick, I’m going to have to apologise..your brilliant questioning & though processes have floored the 99.9% of biologists the world over who worked on and developed over many decades, extraordinary and complex theories which allow us to understand what was, before Patrick nailed them, regarded as a scientific law which they though had answered successfully so many questions about why we are here and how we got here, that had plagued mankind since, if you’ll forgive me, Adam was a lad. Where is the missing link? Damn you Patrick, not one of these scientific boffins has ever had to answer a question like that before. You’ve hit them all with the evolution debate killer.
But, taking a jump back..I don’t declare you dangerous because you question evolution. I declare you dangerous because you don’t question anything. You simply accept that primitive dogma provides us with the answers without question. Call it faith if you want, I call it ignorance.
No, we don’t have all the answers yet, but you’ll forgive for suggesting that you, if we are to use the normal processes of proof, don’t have any of them yet.
-
@Patrick
a letter to the NY Times
Really? A letter to the NY Times! Wow, definitive evidence. A letter to a paper. You can’t be serious…
As pointed out above by others, virtually no scientists buy into the nonsense that is intelligent design. Science is about evidence, and there is no (read: none at all, not very little) evidence that ID exists. Just as there is none that a fairy/unicorn/bearded old wizard or anyone else exists who undertook this design. And the logic falls even further when one seriously stops ans thinks about how flawed the designs are, meaning the designer was pretty hopeless.
Why would any place of learning, unless it was not worthy of the name, hire someone to teach such as science. Sure, such stuff could and perhaps should be taught in the myths and legends part of the human sciences faculty but it does not belong in science, which left such gobbledygook far in the past as our understanding of the law of evolution (please don’t repeatedly use the phrase ‘theory’ if its meaning here confuses you) grew and, importantly, scientists were able to replicate evolution in the lab.
-
@Sighjay – Guys like you boar the hell out of me….ha ha ha! ya the pun was intended. You make it almost too damn easy to show what a pompous (did it again!) ass you really are and below I have posted some of your statements in the past few days to prove it:
Sighjay says: As pointed out above by others, virtually no scientists buy into the nonsense that is intelligent design
My response; Is that a true statement? The answer is of course not, as the greatest scientist of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, came to believe in Intelligent Design because of the complexity of the Universe and how everything fits together. He concluded that it was not possible that everything happened randomly as the “theory of evolution” would have us believe. Eistein stated once and this will be a real kick in the teeth for you ,”holier than thou” (I did it again!!!), Evolutionists “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”A letter to the NY Times! Wow
Sighjay said “You really think you are asking some science shattering question? You don’t think that the odd brilliant mind or 5000, hasn’t grappled with any question…”
My answer, Yes, I admit it’s not original thinking here but what does that have to do with legitimate debate on any issue? These are points often asked of evolutionist and instead of trying to answer the question truthfully you have taken it upon yourself instead to attack my character, intelligence and education. If you were beaten badly in a chess match would you accuse and cry to your opponent of relying too much on the Scilian defense as they should play chess only with original moves? Tsk! tsk! tsk!
Sighjay said “Really? A letter to the NY Times! Wow, definitive evidence. A letter to a paper. You can’t be serious…
My answer, you forgot to mention that the letter sourced the “Wall Street Journal and the “Knight Ridder” Newpaper group. Shame on you and you know it. Maybe you should do a little research before making bold statements?
-
balin says:
please dont mixed atheist with PKI or whatever organization is. we got atheist in every part of us, including moslem, if we dont do the 5 pray in a day, we became atheist right?
what we need to do is, how to make the people love their government and love their religions. so there would be no terrorist or whatsoever.
and i’m not the one who love this government, got everyday electricity black out, is it make me an atheist?hey fawzia what to know the theory of evolution by balin, but please dont be offended its just theory.
for me the Quran and Bible theory is correct men do from Adam, also the darwin is correct also some men do evolved from ape.. he he he.
Now this goin to be fun,why? adam and eve considered as the first human on earth with a big body i mean huge right, means got a very good perfect dna structure, well you can see it on the caucasian and arab/india nations, so who evolved from monkey? he he he …. you guys can answer that question. Ever you found homo erectus fossil or whatever in egypt or in europe continent? nope as far as i know… nope..but you will found in china,indonesia,africa .. see that is our aunt sister, are we are apes that learns religions from adam and eve. -
answer is of course not, as the greatest scientist of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, came to believe in Intelligent Design because of the complexity of the Universe and how everything fits together
Laugh ol Patrick trots out the old chestnuts again. Einstein indeed, well if he did believe in God (a God, the gods) it wasn’t the personal nasty version the Patricks of the world would have us bow n scrape too:
During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man’s own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world…
The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes…
In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests.
Or in another words…Grow up kiddies, he ain’t there or at least not your version and you can bet he didn’t believe the earth was 6000 years old …
-
Dan_the_fish_importer says:
I see the US is mentioned here (more than once) as one of the many western ‘atheist” democracies where prosperity abounds and god is absent. This is simply not the case. We have a secular government which for the most part stays out of religious affairs, but this by no means makes us atheist.
We have a democrat party, where most claim to be Christian. These guys exploit the lower income people of the US, along with the liberals in Hollywood. The democrats like to ensure their vote by keeping their voters in a constant state of “slavery”. By this I mean economic servitude. They keep getting votes, by promising more taxes on the “evil” rich and upper middle class and redistribute this tax money to the low income populations in the form of food stamps and other means of welfare.
We have a republican party, (who also mostly claim to be Christian) that is just “democrat lite” They basically are the same in most regards as regular democrats except they are not as aggressive in taxing and redistribution of wealth. They still do it, just to a less extent.
We also have a conservative party which basically endorses the idea that if you work hard, and make money by providing a service or good to another person who wants these goods then so be it. What you make should be your to keep. Anybody that works hard feels this way.
Those who are lazy would prefer to work less and get someone else’s hard earned money, under the guise of economic democracy. “We deserve it because we exist” For me this is not an option. This is America anybody that works hard has the OPPORTUNITY to succeed. Their is no guarantee that you will, you also have to opportunity to fail.
I digress, we have many religions in America, the largest group is Christian. However, we have sizable populations of Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, Hindu, and so many more other religions that generally “agree to disagree” and manage to co-exist. Freedom to choose ones religion is a great concept. It is why God gave us free will. I do not think god likes forced religion, as the almighty knows that politics are of man, and man is corrupt by his own nature.
Yes, I know a few Muslims, a few Christians, a few Jews, and a few Buddhists. I even know a Hindu or two. And I live in a small town, not a major city. We mix and mingle everyday with very little disruption. What is most important is that society has a set of moral values. Our ancient codes were not written down so we could destroy each other, but so we could all have a bit of peace in our time. What is wrong with the codes that tell us not to kill, steal and lie? It is the fear of something much bigger than ourselves that keeps mankind in line. It is also the fear (when perverted) of something bigger that drives man to kill and oppress in the name of god. We must be careful not to allow these radicals (of any religion) to gain a foot hold in society.
Their was a point here that atheism has never killed anyone. This is a myth just like Christians never killed anyone. The cultural revolution in China is a prime example of atheism killing people. The tenets of communism is basically that the state is the almighty and final power, (atheism in action, in power) and the wanted to suppress those that thought otherwise. So the atheist communist killed.
-
Thought this was funny tho…
“An abomination”
>
>
> In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox
> Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and
> cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an
> open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the
> Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:
>
> Dear Dr. Laura:
>
> Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have
> learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with
> as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
> lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
> states it to be an abomination … End of debate.
>
> I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
> God’s Laws and how to follow them.
>
> 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female,
> provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
> claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
> Why can’t I own Canadians?
>
> 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
> 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
> her?
>
> 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
> period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
> tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
>
> 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
> pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
> claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
>
> 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
> clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
> him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
>
> 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
> abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
> don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
>
> 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
> defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
> vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
>
> 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
> around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
> 19:27. How should they die?
>
> 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
> unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
>
> 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different
> crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
> different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
> and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble
> of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we
> just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people
> who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
>
> I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
> considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.
>
> Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
>
> Your adoring fan.
>
> James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum,
> Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
>
>
> (It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian 🙂 -
Assmad, I honestly don’t know, It would make interesting reading though, don’t you think?
Fortunately, Indonesia does not suffer from such things. -
Yes, the scholar makes a good case.
Comment on “Atheist Threat”.
Related Stories
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
What utter nonsense. Yes I’m aware of the increasingly desperate attempts to revisit evolution by some crackpots but science and virtually all scientists working in palaeontology, biology or related fields regard it as established fact. Daily, evolution is supported by new evidence. I’m gonna buy into their minds rather than something derived from bizarre pre-iron age myths.
There is nothing out there to refute evolution per se. There are holes but we discover and go, as we have since science first side stepped religious bindings and started to ask questions.
Actually step up evolution (if I take your meaning..it’s not a scientific term, but I’m thinking that you find scientific thought, theory and process rather uncomforting..reason being the enemy of religion) is one thing that’s been repeatedly demonstrated in laboratories.
I sat through a two hour lecture on how an increased understanding of DNA is opening doors into our understanding of evolution a few years back. It was complicated, too complicated for me, and I think you, if I understand your posts here, but the evidence is voluminous, with DNA simply adding another step up to our understanding of how we ended up here. And it has nothing to do with God, Allah, Zeus or the thousand of other gods we may have invented over the millenniums, to explain thing we don’t understand or enrich or protect an elite.
Creation and the just as loopy intelligent design are the stuff of fairy tales. Feel free to believe what you will but don’t try and foist blind ignorance upon anybody else, that’s morally bankrupt, and frankly evil.
What’s next..Ray Comfort’s banana story?