₦airaland Forum

chy22:
Just imagine that you are making a house of different sizes, and you need the door to allow passage of cars, would you not make the doors in the same shape in both houses?

What does our genome have to do with houses?...you are merely stating the creationist favorite straw-man "same design....therefore same designer".

Because the gene sequence is the same does not prove it has evolved from apes.

Really?...Tell me again what natural factors can make a gene sequence the same in a respective lineage apart from evolution from a common ancestor?

I might have been because who made recognised they will play the same function.

why is it so if it isn't a molecular vestige of early primates...?

Also remember in molecular biology and biology scientists trys to understand how things work, this clearly supports a creation view, since scientists believe every event has a particular mechanism and every molecular has a particular function.

I do not require a lecture on the purpose of molecular biology...
And you seem to imply they think everything has a purpose....would you mind to clarify this?

This is very contrary to the view that every things is random and in chaos.

You are equivocating here...nobody claimed "everything is random" then again....you've avoided most of my questions so far.

chy22:
Because i clearly understand the complex mechanisms of life and biology. And has quite a great deal of interest in understanding what the mean of life is and I will continue to learn till I find a prove, of what life or what life is not.

Just say motivation sometimes can be better than any degree, you should know that.
Why do biology if you can less about life and its origin

What bothers me is your subscription to convicted charlatan kent hovind's apologetics for creationism...why such a person to subscribe to his extremist beliefs.
I mean the man asserts that during the biblical adam and eve story an ice shield surrounded the earth and aging is a result of being bombarded by x-rays

chy22:
Are you joking or what? Do you now how many mechanism go on during the synthesis of these biological matter. The stone has definitely got no amino acids, and does not contain any genetic code.

Ape has different genetic information compared to humans. Just think about the serious health complications one will go through if any mismatch of DNA occur. Also think about the outcome of transplanting any organ from ape to human with or without immune suppression.

chy22 why is it that upon examination of the human genome we found chromosome number 2 to be a fused primate chromosome corresponding to what we would expect to find if indeed we shared a common ancestor?

chy22:
1. What singularity do you keep pointing out, you have not answered the question of how the matter came to be, so singularity is a theory.

Never did I state singularity as the theory but rather the initial singularity not being understood....matter on the other hand is derived from energy...energy and matter can be derived from each other... hence we convert mass into energy during atomic chain reactions...

2. Even a quantum state needs mathematical constant to function, it needs materials to function irrespective of how small this material is. Bringing us back to the question where did the materials come from.

what mathematical constant is required for virtual particles?

3. Sometimes people say things in assumption and I will class this one as one.
4. A kindergarten understanding of science? Really I do a PhD research in molecular biology. Just like science I prefer proves http://youtu.be/u1ODL8g4ygk have a look around 1:17 that is me. so I do understand science more than you can imagine.

Get me proves of all you claims sir

Lets say I do believe you have such a degree...now what has a molecular biologist have to do outside his field of study?
And I never claimed "proves".....but evidences that support the big bang theory.

chy22:
You mention space and time but fails to recognise that space has to come from some where.

Space is the phenomenon that allows objects to be located on a 3-dimensional plane....with respect to time.
The singularity as I keep pointing out time and time again is existence itself at a 0-dimensional plane..

Do you pause and listen to what you are saying, Do not recognise that 0 is what it is and except you add something it can never change.

I doubt you understand eucladian geometry.
Even still its best you explain what you mean here...are you using mundane understanding of the physical world to address a quantum state?

When you say what we need to do abandon without out any prove you are at that point moving from science to believe and religion.

I said classical eucladian mathematics should be abandoned in favour of a new non-eucladian conjecture that would give an understanding of the singularity.. an example is hawkin entropy...but more on the non-eucladian side.

Science observes and characterise nature, it does not create it. Only when you have a proof should you make it science

Someone has been reading too many creationists pamphlets....science works by creating testable models that are verified by the evidence to make predictions in nature(theories)

science most be tested, proven and independently repeatable.

This is not an insult but an honest comment....you have a kindergarten grade level of understanding on what science is and I'll tell you why...
We haven't observed pluto's entire orbital period....nor had any experiment to prove it having the orbital period we gave it....so how did we now know it to be 200 plus years?
By using the model of newtonian mechanics and the theory of relativity we've deduced it and it has fulfilled the predictions of those models.

blym4real:
If all the matter in the universe was compressed
into a small dot, what caused this to happen?

You are merely repeating your questions....the immensely dense state of all things in existence is the singularity that is not understood..

Where did gravity come from that held it
together?

Gravity itself did not exist at such a stage..

If this "dot" spun rapidly until it exploded., then
where did the energy come from to start the
spinning?

I never said a "dot spun rapidly till it exploded"...

Also, in an environment without friction you
would have this spinning dot going so fast it
would then explode. If this happened, then all
of the particles and matter being expelled from
this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the
same direction as the dot they exploded from.

This is a popular question proposed by creationist kent hovind...and is based on a total misunderstanding of the big bang...
It tries to use the law of conservation of angular momentum to structure the singularity as a ball in space...when in reality space,time,matter are the singularity of which asking what happened in an environment that didn't exist would be like asking where north of the north pole is.

This is a known law of science, which those
who believe in Evolution cannot do away with.
It is known as the Conservation of angular
momentum.

I know the law you are referring to,and I just explained above why that is not the case...

This matter which is said to have created the
planets would all need to spin in the same
direction as the object it came from.
So therefore, all of the planets should be
spinning in the same direction.
However two of them are not. Venus and
Uranus spin backwards.

I've already explained to you that the singularity is not a spinning ball of mass that would be subject to the law..

Qoigord:
I have no proof God exists
I have no proof that God doesn't exist

So I just mind my own business and live my life as an agnostic.

agnosticism have been marketed as a middle ground when in reality it isn't.. gnosticism is defined as knowledge... agnosticism is defined as a lack of knowledge..
claiming knowledge that "god/gods" absolutely exist makes you a gnostic theist... claiming a lack of knowledge but a belief in a "supreme being" makes you an agnostic theist..
claiming knowledge regarding "god/gods" not being evident for lack of knowledge hence "god/gods" do not exist makes you a gnostic atheist.
claiming a lack of knowledge regarding "god/gods" and upon investigating of "god" claims cannot be justified to grant belief is agnostic atheism.
Under the category I'd fall under agnostic atheism..
You could call

blym4real:
You don't understand the singularity yet you believe in it, more reason for me to believe in God. you can claim God does not exist because you also don't understand the existence of God

It would seem you ignored the bulk of my explanations and instead are using a classic "you have faith too" accusation.
Perhaps you failed to read my examples of evidences that were collected that proved the universe emerged from a singularity I even used a balloon as a side analogy.

If you have a balloon and make two dots on it with a marker and
then inflate it....those points keep moving further and further...
This analogy is an example to try to portray the expansion of a 3-
dimensional plane in which two cardinal locations never converge
but keep moving away from one another...
Looking into space...we observe an example of this kind of
expansion analogy by the red-shift(farthest visible light) of far
away galaxies..
Now....lets say you asked someone who wasn't there to witness
you blow the balloon with air and asked him what indicated it ever
being inflated..
He'd tell you that when the balloons contents are examined air or
a gas is neccessary to inflate it...
So how do we know an expansion took place?
If the universe emerged from such an immensely dense state we
should be able to still observe the heat change or radiation around
any point of the universe...
Hence we discovered we are saturated by a cosmic microwave
background.

So,why the sudden dishonest accusation?

musicwriter:
Please note that I do not belong to the cursing fellows. So, next time you want to address me you have to not insult me. You can always be civil by making your point without insulting anybody.

Newton predicted the world ending that's the info I was passing there. Will the world end in 2060?. Nobody knows.

Newton also believed in alchemy you know....his secular ideas revolutionized the world...others didn't produce any results..
He also tried to produce a philosopher stone.

chy22:
Yet you forget the most important question, where did you get the ballon?

The balloon(deflated) represents the singularity that is not understood...mostly due to the fact that space being infinitely curved and time being infinitely dilated from a singularity cannot be understood by classical eucladian mathematics because it represents a 0-dimensional infinite regress..
The same way einstein abandoned classical eucladian co-ordinate system in favour of a non-eucladian one(theory of relativity) is also what we need to do..
A new conjecture of mathematics is required..not a miracle.

Emmalot121:
Do I have to? The Bible is everywhere, lend and read.

But you just claimed you have a valid link that proves the "god" of the bible put humans on the earth.
Reading the bible only gives me a claim....other religious books claim things also.

blym4real:
Go on

Okay....so the original singularity is not understood....the expansion that led to the universe is(to a substantial degree)...
Hence the expansion is regarded as the creation of the universe...
If you have a balloon and make two dots on it with a marker and then inflate it....those points keep moving further and further...
This analogy is an example to try to portray the expansion of a 3-dimensional plane in which two cardinal locations never converge but keep moving away from one another...
Looking into space...we observe an example of this kind of expansion analogy by the red-shift(farthest visible light) of far away galaxies..
Now....lets say you asked someone who wasn't there to witness you blow the balloon with air and asked him what indicated it ever being inflated..
He'd tell you that when the balloons contents are examined air or a gas is neccessary to inflate it...
So how do we know an expansion took place?
If the universe emerged from such an immensely dense state we should be able to still observe the heat change or radiation around any point of the universe...
Hence we discovered we are saturated by a cosmic microwave background.
Should I continue? do you understand all these?

Emmalot121:
I can easily give you a link of how life came to earth through God. Evolution is not science, but an intellectual combination of fact and fiction.

Please provide the link so that we may have access to it...perhaps learn something new.

blym4real.... The big bang isn't an "explosion" in the classical definition...in fact "big bang" was an insult given to the theory by steady-state theorist fred hoyle....
It was now adopted as a sort of "in your face" when converging evidences supported an expansion of the universe from a singularity.
Everything said to exist(including space and time) were traced to being once emerged from a singularity(an immensely dense and small state)..
I could go on but I need to know if you understand any of this or not...or might I direct you to a series of simplistic videos explaining the theory?

Emmalot121:
Don't blackmail me with the use of 'g' for my God cos according to the bible, there are billions of gods on earth, you are one of them

I'd prefer not to be called a "god"

As for your source of morals, its shaky, as far as I'm concerned, the world order is trying to reduce the population of the world, through using of lab cultured viruses like AIDs and Ebola, killing children long before they are born, causing unnecessary wars, like that in Libya, after the toppling of Gadaffi.

I once held the same conspiracy theories you do...the fact is that those who spread them are motivated by propaganda...
Alex jones...an example of a conspiracy theorist,also believes what you wrote above...he uses his show to sell "anti-GMO seeds" and the likes...he is also promoting the de-fluorination of water reserves on ridiculous over hyped sources.

The history of the world has also being that of bloodshed e.g. Muslim jihad, holocaust, the great world wars. In fact, christianity brought about the development of our morals and end of dictatorship.

I only need to open exodus 21 to present your statement as false...
Exodus 21 advocates slavery...
Even still,christianity was also a bloody affair back then....with the trial and execution of people based on heresy and witchcraft.

Since evolution began to be taught in place of genesis, we have seen the great slide in the morals of the west, up to the point of women moving in the streets of America without ordinary pants.

From the bolded I can deduce you to be a creationist...
And what does women's fashion have to do with the theory of evolution?

You said God rules by inflicting fear, I still wonder and ponder on what viable option the perverse mankind lives Him with.

Perhaps you mistake someone else's comment for mine here.

Just a few years without this fear in America, the whole place is upside down.

I don't get you...

Emmalot121:
You see, atheism like feminism put you on 'indifference scale', meaning that, it makes you feel indifferent about your believe e.g. A Godly wife would go for a divorce because she has an escape route in feminism, that is she can shift grounds to satisfy her wish and still maintain her conscience. Though I may claim religious, but my heart via atheism, becomes indifferent of my religion.
This single act that I tag indifference scale is also applicable to atheism i.e. I can cheat, fornicate, kill and then have my conscience. Tell me the morals I can have if God doesn't exist? It means I can hide my moral decardence under atheism and still live a normal life, the same way a muslim can kill christians and call it Jihad. Once God is taken out of one's mind, doing good becomes voluntary and an art of free will.

Piranha's don't have a belief in "god" yet they don't do what ever they like....hence humans also and our continual struggle to enforce laws that prevent unnecessary harm or death..
"god" is not an epitome of morality.....merely a dictatorship.
Because I do not believe in a "god" or afterlife I tend to treat others around me with respect because for all I can tell my actions have an effect on them and they also perform actions that affect me...so to live in a safe community it is best I restrain from causing any harm for the sake of my own wellbeing and others.
You have attached a moral significance to your "god" claim... so anyone who doesn't hold it is seen as "immoral"...this is a false notion brought about by that preconception.

Emmalot121:
Evolution is not science. It is impossible to determine the origin of life. It cannot be tested or the entire scenario repeated. It, unlike religious origin can be changed or manipulated.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life...just biodiversity.

lastmessenger:
Thank you.you are doomed already.

doomed of what?

@lastmessenger,
I believe you think you experienced an " attack"...the next step is to consult a psychiatrist..and get a prescription of antidepressants...you are deeply in need of it

asalimpo:
because ppl know a disbelieve in God is a worse perversion of mind than anything the world has come up against.
Mayb false religion seeks to control but every successful entity had success by restraining it's raging but detrimental desires.
To put down religion for telling you to do same is to b a fool.
You cannot succeed without stringent self control (discipline)

I can barely understand your post..

Apparently he can snap his fingers in his megachurch while one of his actors members collapses but he can't do the same for boko haram?

Davien chapter 34;7
And it came to pass those who were once fed to the lions have become the lions.

Sinequanon I must ask if you are a creationist...because the willfull rejection of anything "random" and "billions of years" with the rejection to define the terms you use reasonates from your posts.

italo:
You mean Karl Marx did not say: “Religion is the opium of the people” and “Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.”

And Vladimir Lenin didn't say: “A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could.”

Conservapedia manufactured those quotes by Atheist Fathers of Communism, linking Atheism directly with communism?

The Atheists didn't kill tens of millions for living their faith?

Perhaps you also deny that there was any persecution of religion in these countries?

Perhaps these communist leaders weren't even Atheists?

They're just being lied against by Conservapedia, right?

That's exactly what it takes to be Atheist. To deny the Truth.

Wikipedia is also anti-Atheist too abi?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_UnionWhen the Soviet Union was established by the Bolsheviks in 1922, it was the constitutional organization which took over from the Russian Empire. At the time of the 1917 Revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church was deeply integrated into the autocratic state enjoying official status. This was a significant factor that contributed to the Bolshevik attitude to religion and the steps they took to control it.[1] Thus the USSR became the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[2] and its replacement with universal atheism.[3][4] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[5] The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.

The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes.[citation needed]

State atheism in the Soviet Union was known as gosateizm,[2] and was based on the ideology of Marxism–Leninism. As the founder of the Soviet state, V. I. Lenin, put it:

Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[6]

Marxist–Leninist atheism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed. Many more were persecuted


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
State promotion of atheism as a public norm first came to prominence in Revolutionary France (1789-1799).[1] Revolutionary Mexico followed similar policies from 1917, as did Marxist-Leninist states. The RSFSR (1917-1991) and the Soviet Union (1922-1991) had a long history of state atheism, whereby those seeking social success generally had to profess atheism and to stay away from houses of worship; this trend became especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929 to 1939. The Soviet Union attempted to suppress public religious expression over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922-1991), Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]

The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million

Keep denying what is known all over the world.

The bulk of your posts still fail to get my reply.

1. communism is not atheism...it can be atheistic and theistic,you can go and learn about christian communism.

2.Being that you agree that it was about dialectical materialism through the imposement of state atheism then you have no point to point to atheism being the cause of deaths...

Since he had the view of dialetical materialism he needed to find a way to enforce that and control the people,he already knew religion had people under control( hence he noted religion as the "opium of the masses" )...so he enacted the employment of a new regime (communism).

3.And with that killed millions....

The point here is that an atheistic policy was needed to enact communism..

Honourhim what is this thread about?

sinequanon:
We don't even get to discuss opposing ideas. All I am asking is for people to read and respond to the point.

I ask HOW something evolved, and people like you are immediately take it as a RHETORICAL QUESTION and post irrelevant answers. HOW did X evolve DOES NOT MEAN X couldn't have evolved.

I am fine with differing opinions. You know what? Davien once actually got to addressing the point. We had different opinions, which was fine with me. When I pointed this out, he called it "arrogance"! He was the one who couldn't stomach difference of opinion.

You refusing to give a definition on grounds of I not being "on the same wavelength" was your arrogance....you can twist it either way you like.

italo:
You started out by suggesting Religion served to suppress what is true and good...and that Atheists dont engage in "killing crusades"...I then showed you how the Catholic Church practically built Science, indeed Western Civilization... and how Atheists are the worst mass murderers in history...with overwhelming, universally known evidence.

You merely quoted the involvement of the catholic church to western civilization history,and the bolded you got it from a christian conservative site...so much for "universally known evidence"

If you have evidence that any of the points in my quotes in untrue, provide it.
1. Stop lying. Bruno wasn't condemned for advancing Copernican System. He was tried for Heresy and the likes. Even your wiki quote proves you false.

really? the blatant admission of crimes due to questioning church dogma is false?
"Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman
Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic
doctrines (including the Trinity , the divinity of Christ, the virginity of
Mary,and Transubstantiation). Bruno's pantheism was also a matter
of grave concern.The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he
was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori . "
Italo in what reality is burning someone alive for denying dogma a just deed?

2. The Inquisition was an attempt by the Catholic Church to stop unjust executions. Heresy was a capital offense against the state. Rulers of the state, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw heretics as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath.

No,it was an attempt to regain back control of the "holy land" using brute force.

When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig. It was not easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. The lord needed some basic theological training, very few did. The sad result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent judge of the crime.

Stealing=heresy? that is a pathetic apologetic....
@bolded,So it wasn't the church that accused bruno of heresy but "secular authorities"? you are contradicting your previous statement.

The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, an attempt to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges.

fair trials?
So did anyone ever record a fair trial?

From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death.

You keep masking the churchs actions by claiming it was "secular authorities".
The inquisition was purely non-secular
" The Inquisition was a Roman Catholic tribunal [/b]for discovery
and punishment of heresy, which was marked by the severity
of questioning and punishment and lack of rights afforded to
the accused."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html

Again,
"The Inquisition is a group of institutions within the judicial
system of the [b] Roman Catholic Church whose aim is to combat
heresy . "
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

The bolded is a lie,the church itself started the inquisition to weed out heretics.

Most people tried for heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or had their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed.

Another tongue in cheek lie.

" Initially a tribunal would open at a location and an edict of
grace would be published calling upon those who are
conscious of heresy to confess; after a period of grace, the
tribunal officers could make accusations. Those accused of
heresy were sentenced at an auto de fe , Act of Faith.
Clergyman would sit at the proceedings and would deliver
the punishments. Punishments included confinement to
dungeons, physical abuse and torture. Those who reconciled
with the church were still punished and many had their
property confiscated, as well as were banished from public
life. Those who never confessed were burned at the stake
without strangulation; those who did confess were strangled
first."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html

If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done.

Nothing to be done except torture you mean.

Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities.

The church was in complete control...all heretics were tried by the roman church.

Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church.

You can't revision history here...many jews were tried by the roman church and burned.
" In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian
heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews.
However, disputes about Maimonides ’ books (which
addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures)
provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the
Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of
volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake
took place in France."

The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

Yet another lie...how are trials to weed out heretics and burn them saving lives?
I've already exposed your dubious lies.

As Wikipedia states, Bruno was found guilty of many charges of heresy and the proper sentence for the time was meted out. The Church was there to make sure he received a fair trial.

Which was to burn him?

https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110209102919AAlkPTL
These people were killed by CIVIL AUTHORITIES who had no affiliation to my religion, which is Catholicism.

But compare that small number to how many the ATHEIST CIVIL AUTHORITIES have killed to advance your Atheist religion. Tens of millions!

And what good has your religion brought the world? Bondage, destruction and death!

If his motives during the crusades are questionable, how can he be trusted to write honestly on the crusades.

Also, the conduct of the troops don't make the idea of the crusades bad, just like the conduct of Allied troops dont make the fight against Hitler bad. Think well, for once.

cool... you went to yahoo and found a catholic that dismissed the church's bloody history.
And to end it you arrived at your initial assertion of there being an "atheist religion" and "atheist civil authorities" that killed tens of millions.
So in total you gave a series of lies and then misrepresented atheism to keep your belief n a magic man

italo:
It's not me, it's the Fathers of Communism that linked it directly to Atheism.

In a recent interview D'Souza declared:
“ Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and Communism were atheist ideologies. Stalin and Mao weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.
It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...[15]
”
Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:
“ As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether Christian or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.[16] ”
Karl Marx said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."[17]


Vladimir Lenin
Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[18]
Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[19]
The atheism in communist regimes has been and continues to be militant atheism that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26] In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in Leningrad’s Kazan cathedral.--Conservapedia.

Ah! But Atheists kill tens of millions for believing God.

copy-pasted conservative propaganda.

Ad hominem.

Sure,mask explaining yourself by claiming I commited an ad hominem.

Prove them wrong!

After copying and pasting anti-atheist claims from a christian conservative site,you then tell me to prove you wrong when they aren't right to begin with?

Are they lying against Karl Marx and Lenin who directly linked Communism to Atheism?

As Lenin himself stated the combating of religion was to
advance the class struggle, the very basis of Marxism – not because or in the name of atheism.
It was because of their belief in the class struggle, or Dialectical materialism.
Even Lenin said the following [b]
“The combating of
religion cannot be
confined to abstract
ideological preaching…
eliminating the social
roots of religion.
“Religion must be
declared a private affair.
In these words socialists
usually express their
attitude towards religion.
But the meaning of these
words should be
accurately defined to
prevent any
misunderstanding. We
demand that religion be
held a private affair so
far as the state is
concerned.
But by no means can we
consider religion a
private affair so far as
our Party is concerned.
Religion must be of no
concern to the state, and
religious societies must
have no connection with
governmental authority.
Everyone must be
absolutely free to profess
any religion he pleases,
or no religion whatever,
i.e., to be an atheist,
which every socialist is,
as a rule. Discrimination
among citizens on
account of their religious
convictions is wholly
intolerable. Even the bare
mention of a citizen’s
religion in official
documents should
unquestionably be
eliminated. No subsidies
should be granted to the
established church nor
state allowances made to
ecclesiastical and
religious societies. These
should become absolutely
free associations of like-
minded citizens,
associations independent
of the state. Only the
complete fulfillment of
these demands can put an
end to the shameful and
accursed past when the
church lived in feudal
dependence on the state,
and Russian citizens lived
in feudal dependence on
the established church,
when medieval,
inquisitorial laws (to this
day remaining in our
criminal codes and on
our statute-books) were
in existence and were
applied, persecuting men
for their belief or
disbelief, violating men’s
consciences, and linking
cozy government.” (Lenin
– Socialism and Religion,
1905)
[/b]


Some religious denominations were even allowed, like Islam, which ‘experienced official co-option from agencies such as spiritual
administration of the muslims.’
At one point, ‘the russian orthodox church was enlisted to support stalin’s government in the country’s defense – support which it unreservedlgranted by naming stalin as divinely appointed, just as it had done under the Russian tsars.’ Now is that atheism?
Italo.... If it were truly atheism that drove their actions, why is it that you’ve been unable to find any quotes to back up your claim?
All the quotes you’ve given italo have been taken out of context as I’ve shown in these few examples. Further more, if it was this “atheism” that drove their actions then why the huge discrepancies between the communists’ beliefs regarding the status of religion in a socialist society? Even Lenin expressed ideas of religious tolerance.
Why was this? As I’ve stated before, it was because of their ideology and their attempts to get the masses to accept it.
You can quote conservapedia all day long,its not going to give you any credibility,just christian conservative propaganda..
After going to conservapedia to lift more conservative propaganda you then ask me to prove you wrong you weren't even right in the first place....

italo:
The only reason Atheist radical groups are not as prominent as ISIS, Al Qaeda or Boko Haram is that Atheists are in the minority so the radicals would be very few compared to the general population and would be easily extinguished. And Atheists are cowardly.

That's why the dictators do it for Atheism when they have all the powers of the State at their disposal.

Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:
“ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
There Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!"

lol...is this all? "atheists are cowardly" and linking. atheism to communism is all you can do?.
point is nobody kills for "atheism"... just like nobody kills in the name of a lack of belief in aliens,fairies.
You can quote anti-atheists all day long,the fact remains that nobody kills without a belief...and atheism is merely an unbelief.
Upon investigation of that copy-paste article you keep posting I traced it back to conservapedia
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder
A site notorious for giving bias views and contrary opinions about events...their most ridiculous assertions
http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ridiculous_quotes_from_Conservapedia
Conservapedia is also a christian apologist version of wikipedia...so I expect no less than link atheism to mass murder,conservapedia also links homosexuality to psychiatric problems and claimed the earth ejaculated on the moon to create its craters during noah's flood,lol.
Its best you go deal with the s3x scandals,perhaps the pope might ordain them and you'll automatically go with it.

I beg of you...stop reading conspiracy theories!

yinkuscious:
john 3:6-8 says, that which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of spirit is spirit
Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again
the wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hear the sound thereof, but cannot tell where it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is everyone that is born of spirit

So the bible is where you got the notion from...lol
Perhaps Spiderman too is real, since a book says so.

sinequanon:
I can't find something contentious. Contention is something that happens between people, in this case, scientists in the field.

okay

I can tell you that I do NOT accept that

okay

1. anyone has demonstrated that random mutations happen frequently enough to account for all the changes that have happened. All they have is gut feel. And my gut feel is that 4 billion years is not enough.

So "gut feeling" determines speciation now?...mutations happen frequently...that is a biological fact of life....offsprings are never perfect copies of parents...as generations go by mutations cause fluctuations in genotypical and phenotypical morphologies till a standard is reached.
If the standard is not flexible enough to adapt and exploit new environmental factors it dies out.
4 billion years does not entail that the environment had the same environmental pressures....rather creatures had diverse conditions to contend against...so each population that had a selective advantage in different conditions could reinforce those changes and diverge into new sub-sets of the parent lineage.
Whether you have a "gut feeling" is irrelevant to conclusions....

2. consciousness is an emergent property due to the complexity of neural systems. (the answer to the "hard question" in ToE laughable.)

For someone who believes a "gut feeling" is sufficient to dismiss decades of research,it would not be surprising that you'd get a laugh off a theory for not accounting for what you perceive it should.
I've asked you several times to define consciousness....but arrogance to do so has prevented you to....instead you'd claim you "know" and will only have a conversation with people who also claim to "know" like you do.

3. Free will is an illusion.

What is "free will"?... does the theory of evolution ever account for it? or are you merging your own expectations to the theory of evolution with a "gut feeling"?

... to name a few.

okay...kindly answer those questions before we can go further.