U.S. Atheists Reportedly Using Hair Dryers to 'De-Baptize'

reply to post by undo


Not sure about that, but there is sufficient evidence that God created 2 Adams in the bible. The one in the Garden who was unnamed, and the one named Adam.

reply to post by Gorman91


in the original language the first adam is created in the image of the gods (the elohim), male and female. some take that to mean the first adam was both male and female at the same time, hermaphrodite. i take it to mean the first race of adams was men and women who were created in the image of the gods, who were male gods and female gods. they were the atum (afterall, moses wrote torah and he was raised egyptian. so the creation story is from the egyptian perspective), just as it says. that's why adam means red-skinned. the first adamic race was egyptian in appearance

click the little number next to the word "man"... it was originally, adam not man. lol notice why they made it man instead? cause in the same verse the "man" to which they refer is "them" and that couldn't be said about "adam" as the translators didn't believe that "adam" referred to more than one person. so they made it man in the translation so it would still fit the plural "them." that is what i call translation bias.
www.blueletterbible.org...

RED skinned...that's red skin
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/5d56364cb46d8da9.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 18-7-2010 by undo]

reply to post by Wolf321


Wow, its a joke. Take a breath and relax. It is not an official, formal part of being an atheist; it is a piece of satire about how you need special rituals to be in religions. All you need to be an atheist is to not be convinced that deities exist. Atheism in not a religion, we don't have formal rituals, beliefs, or priests. All we have is a lack of a particular belief.

reply to post by undo


What is that image from?

Also, there are no gods. There are powerful god-like angels that God keeps close to him, and one that rebelled. This is because God told angels to serve man, a lesser creature to them.

In science, Man kind evolved 200,000 years ago, but how we act, our brains, did not evolve till 50,000 years ago, known as "behavioral modernity". This event is what I believe constitutes the fall. It also makes sense date-wise. As there was a civilization Noah belonged to in his day. This may have been something in the 40,000 year gap between the earliest civilizations and "the fall".

reply to post by Gorman91


i do believe it's from the four races of man painting in seti I's tomb in abydos egypt or in the valley of the kings, not sure which of his monuments. would have to look it up again. and i was just showing you how the first adam reference is plural in the original language and wasn't man but adam and that the adamic race was created in the image of the gods, plural, and are named as male and female, meaning that women were also created in the image of the gods, according to the original language. i think moses was just giving some insight into what the egyptians believed was the creation of the first adam (atum, plural).



[edit on 18-7-2010 by undo]

Originally posted by C09JayLT
All you need to be an atheist is to not be convinced that deities exist. Atheism in not a religion, ...

Simply 'to not be convinced' would be more in line with the concept of an Agnostic. Atheist claim, not that they are unsure there is a deity because of a lack of 'proof', but that because there is a lack of 'proof,' they believe (have faith) that there IS not a deity. To have a belief in a non-deity is just as much as those with a belief in a deity, ergo religion.

You say satire, I say the possible beginnings of ritual. Many traditions/rituals started out just the same way.

reply to post by Wolf321


sorta like the people worshipping the doomsday bomb in beneath planet of the apes.

reply to post by Wolf321


An agnostic beleives that the claims about a deity are unknowable. An atheist rejects the claims that there are a deity. Rejecting the claim and claiming nonexistance are two different things. You are confusing strong and week atheism. Strong atheism rejects the claim that deities exist and claims that they do not, but weak atheism just rejects the claim that deities exist. In order to be an atheist you only need to reject the claim that deities exist.

en.m.wikipedia.org...
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Mr. Tinkertrain

I didn't like the Rush Limbaugh thing. I was personally offended, but I supported his right to do it. There's a difference between disagreeing and thinking that people should be legally prevented from expression, such as a 'de-baptizing'.

From the old Limbaugh thread:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't have been done. I'm a free-speech advocate. My point is that it's about the stupidest thing a person could do!

And he's now in hot water over it.

Don't confuse being upset about something with thinking that the laws should be changed to prevent it. I support free speech in all circumstances. I never try to stop people from saying what they think. And I very rarely get pissed off over something on the internet.

You seem to think you know an awful lot about me for being a brand new member.

[edit on 7/18/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

You should read my introduction thread before accusing me of being a new member.

There were many many many threads on the subject and you ma'am was pretty upset over it. I know you bring up one post of one thread on the subject. All that proves is that you posted one time that he has the right to say it.

No, I'm not going to go digging through each thread on the subject. I don't need to prove anything to anyone. Plus, I don't want to spend the time doing it. I know you are full of crap and thats good enough for me.

I noticed though that you stayed away from the portion of my post that talked about gays.

You and I aren't strangers and I will continue to call your b.s. out.

reply to post by Republican08




In the quest to replace moral relativism in the world, we seem to have foregone wisdom, and instead have floundered upon the shoals of a moral irrelativism, where all things are of equal value, and all things either deserve the same moral outrage or lack of moral outrage.

Don't offend anyone or find anything offensive. A molehill is the same as a mountain. Add to that the multitude of slippery slope thoughts and strung together, made up "facts".

There ARE differences, and our outrages should be proportionate to those differences. Life is full of continuums, with the Elvis mocker at one end of a continuum and the preachers of hate at the other.

Originally posted by C09JayLT
Rejecting the claim and claiming nonexistance are two different things.

How is that even possible? The debate is one of duality. There is or isn't a god. To deny one is to accept the other; at least from an atheistic perspective. The only way for it not to be a duality would be to predefine the nature of God, such as with Ignostics.

You are confusing strong and week atheism.

So there are subdivisions of atheism, much like subdivisions of Christianity, Islam and other religions. Interesting, but not surprising.

reply to post by undo


Honestly I cannot understand many gods. If there are many gods then there would be one that took over the rest, making sense with the war-like nature of man, or many that coexisted, which is in direct opposition to man's nature, invalidating being created in anyone's image.

reply to post by Wolf321


There is a big difference between rejecting the claim and claiming the opposite. Rejecting the claim is saying 'I don't believe there is a god.' Claiming the opposite is saying 'I believe there is no god.' The strong/week claim is mearly a easy handle for the physophical differences, not the sign of a atheistic church with a split. We have no doctrine, we have no ministers, we have no churches, we have no beliefs, we have no ceremonies (but some funny parodies), and we have no creeds. All we have is a lack of one particular belief.

This is quite simple. If you read my posts and the links I provided carefully and with an open mind, you can understand. If you chose to accept ignorance and spread misunderstanding after my assisstance, that is your choice.

In either case atheism is not a religion.

reply to post by Gorman91


just telling you what the original translation says.

compare

hebrew wearing talith and phylactery
admin.dealermaid.com...

king tut
opinionsandexpressions.files.wordpress.com...

reply to post by undo


Too true mate, they do look similar. But at the same time, Gaulish and Middle affricate cultures are just as much the same. Native American and Indonesian cultures are similar too. There's many cultures that were related.

However, just because Egypt said there were many gods, does not mean that it is true. In fact, most polytheistic religions to have ever existed, over time, had fewer and fewer gods, eventually deciding on a "king god" with lesser gods below him. This vector of religious evolution happened with Hinduism, Egyptian mythology, Greece, etc etc. Many places indeed. Even in modern Hinduism, many people believe that there is one God with many faces. This is the same Christian view of a Single God with three identities. All 3 being the same person in different form.

The fact that every polytheistic religion does this is interesting and begs to question, is it man's nature to worship one God?

Pfft.

THIS IS MADE OF STUPID!

Worthless gestures make the world go round I guess.

God 430 created 1254 man 120 image 6754, image 6754 God 430 created 1254 ; male 2145 female 5347 created 1254.

those are the only words in the original genesis 1:27

the word god was from the plural elohim, and the word man from the word adam.

so the verse would've read something like this:

Elohiym created adam image, image Elohiym created; male female created.

Originally posted by C09JayLT
Rejecting the claim is saying 'I don't believe there is a god.' Claiming the opposite is saying 'I believe there is no god.'

I have studied many religions and beliefs, to include atheism, and have never understood it to be as you claim here. Perhaps you can explain it better.

Example. I have an oyster. If I say "I don't believe there is a pearl in it." is the same as me saying, "I believe there is no pearl in it." Both are saying, that without my seeing inside or having knowledge before hand if its contents, I am choosing to have faith in the idea of a pearl free oyster. That is because the nature of the pearl-oyster situation is there either is or is not a pearl. To accept one is the same as to deny the other.

You are making the argument above that the choice is either a belief in nothing or not believing in something. That removes 'something' as an option and leaves only 'nothing' to choose from.

reply to post by Gorman91


i don't argue that there's a supreme deity in mesopotamian and egyptian texts, just showing the original translation. i have alot more data floating around in my head on this subject, since i've been studying it for a very long time. in fact, there's several examples of a divine council of gods, with one supreme god at the head.

Originally posted by airspoon

U.S. Atheists Reportedly Using Hair Dryers to 'De-Baptize'

www.foxnews.com

American atheists lined up to be "de-baptized" in a ritual using a hair dryer, according to a report Friday on U.S. late-night news program "Nightline."

Leading atheist Edwin Kagin blasted his fellow non-believers with the hair dryer to symbolically dry up the holy water sprinkled on their heads in days past. The styling tool was emblazoned with a label reading "Reason and Truth."

Kagin believes parents are wrong to baptize their children before they are able to make their own choices, eve

(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow........just wow..............We are so stupid as a species.....i'm ashamed.

and no not bashing athiests.....they can believe what they want.

So can religious followers...

but just wow