The Hypocrisy surrounding Christianity and Atheism

a reply to: InhaleExhale

I agree, it's truly sickening to use such tragic stories to prove a point that is a in fact a lie.


As someone who has suffered a Psychotic episode, I agree.

They seem to be stuck in a trance like state...
Repeating the same thing over and over again.

That's not a sign of good mental health.

Self-victimisation comes to mind.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

well, that's the thing....freedom of religion guarantees that the government has no right to interfere with the observance, and practice of whatever religion you choose. so if their religion clearly states that they don't believe in modern medicine, and that it's herbs, orange juice, and the bible...well, that's that...

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

i know, right?

i mean, the dude starts a thread about how christians are under attack....and then he starts multiple threads attacking people who don't believe as he does....

astounding hypocrisy....blatant, even..

a reply to: TechUnique

I think the answer is pretty good, as it appears they did their due dilligence over years of studying the iron-preservative theory.

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner


Does having questions about a certain aspect of science preclude you from any and all scientific advances? Or is questioning actually the basis of science.

Questioning is definitely one of the base aspects of science. If nobody were asking questions, there would be nothing to investigate, no experiments to be run no digging at archaeological sites.

I hate the term pseudoscience. All science is pseudoscience until it's been proven.

Not true at all. "Pseudoscience" is when a claim, belief or practice is presented as scientific, but does not bother to adhere to a valid scientific method, is devoid of supporting evidence, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. It generally is characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. Most cases of pseudoscience I see are in anthropology and archaeology and one of the hallmarks of it is a complete refusal to share data or evidence for I depends t testing and confirmation. If the claims are legitimate then there is abso,utrly no reason to hide behind a smoke screen as all too often is the case.


A practice, can reasonably be construed as pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but fails to meet these norms or even attempt to do so. Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing. Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science."Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.

The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience has ethical political implications, as well as philosophical and scientific issues. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.

What has happened in the scientific world, where you're ridiculed for questioning the status quo?

You're only ridiculed for questioning if you can't support your thesis. The more extraordinary your claims, the more extraordinary your support for those claims much be. I won't disagree that there is occasional stubbornness and bruised egos. We are after all talking about human beings not automatons. The difference between someone engaging in pseudoscience and someone engaging in legitimate scientific pursuits is that the latter doesn't mind being wrong or being shown how and where they went wrong. This is because they don't mind learning from their mistakes and it helps to know where you went astray because in many instances that knowledge will set you on the right path. Questioning the status quo is a daily occurrence in the scientific community because there are always new ideas and hypothesis coming forth. Its a simple matter of being able to support those ideas.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Just a quick question for you tech unique. It may seem off topic but your reply will tell you a lot about how you really feel about religion vs Scientific approach.

If one of your children was having a seizure, would you rush them to the hospital or to the church. Explain your choice of answer

I don't go to church myself why would I take my daughter there? I don't agree with Church or Sunday worship.

I don't understand how your question relates anyway, if she was having a seizure it would be a physical ailment of this world so obviously I would take her to the hospital and pray to God she doesn't have brain damage.

I don't understand your question really?

a reply to: TechUnique

so obviously I would take her to the hospital and pray to God she doesn't have brain damage.

why take her to a hospital if you are going to pray for her? so god can take credit for what highly trained scientifically equipped men and women did?

a reply to: TechUnique
So you have more faith in science than God when it comes to curing physical ailments. A man of science is more effective than an all loving all powerful God.

a reply to: TechUnique

What do you guys think about this? More specifically, why do you think leading Atheists are so hateful towards something they think doesn't even exist? They are explicitly referring to God and Jesus Christ. Not to the religion of Christianity.

Certainly the video is opinionated but then so are all people. I found it truthful insofar as it reflects my very own opinions.
The reason they act the way they act? I believe it's because they fear they are wrong and want concrete proof of a Creator. They do not realize that even if God showed Himself openly that people would still do as they want to do. To sum it up. Everyone wants to live like hell and yet go to blessed eternity. The difference? Some will try while others will not try.
Thanks for the video TechUnique

Wow just wow, another shoddy video to prove what again?

Couple of things.

(a) I am not an atheist.
(b) Your videos show no proof, just a point of view. Are you capable of writing down an original thought? If so, stop with the videos that you did not produce.
and
(c) See point (a). I am not an atheist. I am a deeply spiritual being, though you'd throw the words satanic at my path, and be wrong. I am not an Abarahamic spiritualist and reject your deities supremacy, while acknowledge he exists.

Really people?

Explain to me, how somebody can troll their OWN thread?

Explain to me, how what he previously posted in a separate thread, has anything to do with this one? Well, until he brought it over to here. But he did so, after the fact, of everyone using that previous thread to somehow discount the validity of this one. (rolls eyes)

As to the questions posed in the OP. Directed to the OP. If your not the OP, please do me a favor and don't respond to me. Please. I'm not in the mood to suffer intolerance, I find it intolerable.

1. More specifically, why do you think leading Atheists are so hateful towards something they think doesn't even exist?

The fact that it doesn't exist for them, does not change the fact that religions, are still used to justify wrong doing. The ostracizing and segregation of certain people, like gay people. The fact that religion is used to justify war. Used as justification in allowing you to keep your child home and let them die from a curable disease. These are all serious and legitimate issues, and Atheism is a good advocate for these injustices within religions. Can they be passionate about the causes they champion? You sure bet they can. You have to understand, they are on crusade. They mean to liberate the minds of the deluded. Much like Christianity and Muslims want to liberate the minds of the infidel. It's all a vicious circle jerk that will be impossible to end. This debates been going on for centuries! So don't get your knickers all in a dander, and just enjoy the debate.

2. Have you noticed that hardcore Atheists seem to have a lot of vested energy in combating creationists?

So what? They believe in evolution. So do I, and I'm not an atheist. Evolution is the Universe and Earth's way of perfecting itself. Here is an easy way to understand why 'God' would build evolution into her creation. Growth. Plain and simple. No sense in creating a universe that is dead, or would be dead already, if it hadn't the ability to procreate itself and propagate itself across the vast spaces of the unknown.

Blessed Be,
CdT

a reply to: mOjOm

Plus you're still using more stupid YouTube videos as if YouTube videos are the apex of Human Knowledge and Truth. There is just no possible way to get through to you is there. You are truly the definition of a Zealot, you know that??

Now, Now. Anger is not going to prove your point. Your opinion is just as valid as TechUnique's point of view and his point of view is just as valid as yours. You should make your own video and present your case of proof that the Theory of Evolution is no longer a Theory. Then it can be entered in academia as fact instead of Theory. Most people understand both camps of view but you will have to take this matter of proof to the fields of true science. By their own guidelines they still consider evolution as Theory and being Theory can not be shown or demonstrable by any of their guide lines. Your passion is respected and you have shown that you also are a zealous person.

I also do believe that evolution as taught in academia is not true. I do believe that change does occur in creation but that change that you believe to be evolution is actually creation of the Creator. My belief (theology if you will) shows me that the Father God of the Christ Jesus has never stopped creating and that His continued creating is what you and the other evolutionists believe to be your false science. I cannot demonstrate or show my Theology simply because if I could then it would no longer be theology. Now you cannot show or demonstrate your belief either but I am not angry with your opinions. It all comes out in the wash (so to speak.) We all die and become as we were. The only difference is that I believe that I will not be a cow chip in the barnyard. The choice is yours. Good luck in your trip to the stars.

a reply to: CirqueDeTruth

Well to be fair the whole fricking thread is a troll by the OP. Those videos show it.


But ok, speaking as a spiritual person who is also someone educated in the Sciences (will a post grad qualification do?). I have no horse in this argument

(1) Many leading Atheists are indeed agressive over their stance. Yeah some are complete Dicks. But they often see it as the only way to deal with the equally dickish creatonists. Both are as bad as the others. However it does not invalidate many of the points these atheists make, as they tend to not resort to ad hominin attacks, as the creations do.

(2) Speaking as a scientist (not an atheist), I do indeed have a vested interest in fighting these creationists. They are either (a) genuinely ignorant of how science (and evolution in particular) works or (b) Trolling. Either way, I am entitled to defend my point of view, and combat lies and misinformation. The world is a better place when the truth is visible.

Thus I will ask you a question in return.

Why prey tell are creationists allowed to act in the manner you have described above, and it is perfectly fine because "it is their faith", but anyone else, who does it is in the wrong? Surely that would be the height of hypocrisy?

a reply to: Seede

"Belief" does not prove anything. Belief is an act of faith. Science however is following evidence, reproducible and verifiable evidence. QED "belief" should never be applied to science. On top of this, science should never be applied to faith. They deal in different things. As a scientist and a spiritual person in a non abrahamic faith, I have no problem with either of those ideas.

ALso the person you replied to did not seem angry to me, so why project an emotion?

originally posted by: Seede
Now, Now. Anger is not going to prove your point. Your opinion is just as valid as TechUnique's point of view and his point of view is just as valid as yours.

Really??? Is it really just as valid??? His theory from the video uses the Loch Ness Monster as part of his supposed evidence
Then there is of course the real source of his knowledge, The Bible. Including Magic tales of Virgin Births, Magic, Demons, Men living in the Belly of a Giant Fish, Talking Snakes, Invisible Supreme Beings, etc.

If you think all opinions are equally valid you're crazy. If you don't believe me, go ask your average Joe his opinion on how the internal combustion engine works and then go ask a mechanic there opinion of the same. Do you think both of those opinions are equal too??? How about we ask a doctor and fry cook how to treat Pulmonary edema and see if both opinions are equal there???

I also do believe that evolution as taught in academia is not true. I do believe that change does occur in creation but that change that you believe to be evolution is actually creation of the Creator.

How much time have you had studying actual Evolutionary Theory from Professors???

So all the selective breeding on animals that humans have done over thousands of years actually was God at work slowly changing the animals appearance and abilities step by step rather than humans carefully selecting and breeding for those traits and just making it seem like we were doing it??

BTW, there is no need to talk to me in a condescending tone either. I don't need your evaluation on my emotional state or your soothing words to help me deal with anger. Just say what you wanna say next time.

a reply to: Noinden

Why prey tell are creationists allowed to act in the manner you have described above, and it is perfectly fine because "it is their faith", but anyone else, who does it is in the wrong? Surely that would be the height of hypocrisy?

You know I'm not sure where I read it before... but it goes something like this...

Hypocrisy is not the road back to moral high ground. You cannot say your moral and right, without actually acting moral and ethical in your interactions with others. Be they of a differing faith, or ideology, or whatever.

So all the stone throwing between Atheists and Creationists is not helping to solve, or reform, or change any ideologies here. Instead there is war of ideologies and each side is insistent, their way of thinking is the right way. Atheists have fallen into the same way of thinking, they stand to oppose. Until everyone can set aside their bias, per-conceived notions, and work together to solve the issues - hypocrisy will reign.

Honest discussions - even and perhaps especially on topics about which we disagree - can help us resist hypocrisy and arrogance. They can also help us live up to the basic ideals, such as liberty and justice for all, on which our country was founded. ~ David Price.

CdT

a reply to: CirqueDeTruth

SO you perchance call Creationists out when they act this way too? Just curious?

As I've said, I'm both a spiritual person and a follower of evolution

a reply to: Noinden

Sure do. I'm not a creationist. I believe evolution produced sentience in the Universe. Not the other way around. I'm simply interested in reading a thoughtful debate, where everyone can civilly discuss the matter, without the OP being called a troll because he dares to have a creationist point of view.

CdT

a reply to: CirqueDeTruth

That wasn't the reason he was called a troll. You probably saw mention of a previous thread of his. Not sure if you read that thread or not. I think people have called him a troll because of his refusal to have a thoughtful debate.