• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

Using atheist ideology, an atheist can't envision a way for the universe to be created. EDIT: Unless one factors in the faith of atheists - the non-faith in god(s). I don't know, can atheists do thought experiments on how the universe was created? I know they can do thought experiments on how an argument is like a sandwich....

What is atheist ideology
what is faith of atheism
what does the creation of the universe have to do with atheism?

these questions will be dodged and can factually be answered because atheism is not a religion has no faith nor is it an ideology. THis fact remains true no matter how many times lies are posted falsely declaring otherwise. lol

if you disagree simply post FACTS that answer those questions and that some how magically proof the dictionary wong lmao

who wants to bet this is dodged

CRICKETS!!!!

Well here we are over 3000 posts in and zero facts can be presented that makes atheistism a religion.
 
Here's some information by St.Augustine that destroys a sacred cow today, which is the erroneous belief that Charles Darwin was the mind who discovered the ape to man evolution myth. In fact, Darwin only read literature of the classical era and then called it his own. Today people think Darwin was some great scientist who proved man evolved from apes. But this careless thinking avoids the reality that what came down to us from Darwinian assumptions had been an ancient mystical belief long before Augustine's time. Here, Augustine is speaking about the origin and diversity of humans and some myths which have come about since ancient times.

City of God: Book XVI, chapter 8, p.663 (Penguin Classics translation),

"Some years ago, but certainly in my time, a man was born in the East with a double set of upper parts, but a single set of the lower limbs. That is, he had two heads, two chests, and four arms, but only one belly and two feet, as if he were one man. And he lived long enough for the news of his case to attract many sightseers.
In fact, it would be impossible to list all the human infants very unlike those who, without any doubt, were their parents. Now it cannot be denied that these derive ultimately from that one man; and therefore the same is true of all those races which are reported to have deviated as it were, by their divergences in bodily structure, from the normal course of nature followed by the majority, or practically the whole of mankind. If these races are included in the definition of 'human', that is, if they are rational and mortal animals, it must be admitted that they trace their lineage from that same one man, the first father of all mankind. This assumes, of course, the truth of the stories about the divergent features of those races, and their great differences from one another and from us. The definition is important; for if we did not know monkeys, long tailed apes and chimpanzees are not men but animals, those natural historians who plume themselves on their collection of curiosities might pass them off on us as races of men, and get away with such nonsense."

City of God, Marcus Dods translation:

"Some years ago, quite within my own memory, a man was born in the East, double his upper, but single his lower half--having two heads, two chests, four hands, but one body and two feet like a ordinary man ; and he lived so long that many had an opportunity of seeing him. But who could enumerate all the human births that have differed widely from their ascertained parents? As, therefore, no one will deny that these are all descended from from that one man, so all the races which are reported to have diverged in bodily appearance from the usual course which nature generally or almost universally preserves, if they are embraced in that definition of man as rational and mortal animals, unquestionably trace their pedigree to that one first father of all. We are supposing these stories about various races who differ from one another and from us to be true ; but possibly they are not ; for if we were not aware that apes, and monkeys, and sphinxes are not men, but beasts, those historians would possibly describe them as races of men, and flaunt with impunity their false and vainglorious discoveries."

Charles Darwin would be the natural historian who would entertain the false theory which placed man in the same pedigree as the moneys and apes. Julian Huxley would have fun making fun of the mentally challenged as Darwin's theory allowed for that such bigotry. But real science proves that mutations at birth are all human through and through, and mentally challenged people can give birth to normal healthy children. In all cases, no human being who was born either a Siamese twin or mentally challenged is subhuman as Darwin and J.Huxley would want us to believe. And here, from 4th century Augustine, we see that long before Darwin's ignorance, human deformations were believed by pagans to be apes and monkeys--a show of mockery for those born different from other humans. Today, Darwin's ape to man theory--borrowed from ancient pagan philosophers--is used to degrade and dehumanize people so that corrupt powers will rule over the masses and strip them of all their earned income and make them slaves to a dictator of the state. Augustine mentions how absurd these people were back in his day and now we see why Augustine mentioned their absurdities.
 
And, for what its worth, as my collection of ancient literature goes beyond the normal bounds of the average personal library. I have found all doctrines of modern evolution in the classical era, including things like string & M-theory. Evolutionists have taught nothing new that has not been taught thousands of years ago in ancient times.
 
And, for what its worth, as my collection of ancient literature goes beyond the normal bounds of the average personal library. I have found all doctrines of modern evolution in the classical era, including things like string & M-theory. Evolutionists have taught nothing new that has not been taught thousands of years ago in ancient times.

Ok, I’ll bite: What do you think string theory has to do with evolution? I would be very surprised to hear it discussed in a biology class.
 
Ok, I’ll bite: What do you think string theory has to do with evolution? I would be very surprised to hear it discussed in a biology class.

I don't think you'll hear this discussed in biology class. String theory is a theory interpreted from an evolutionary bias. The church fathers would give the same reply then as we do today. The theory may have some seeds of truth in it but not worth dwelling on. I used to love studying cosmology until I realized that most of it is just one metaphysical conjecture piled on to many other metaphysical conjectures. But everything that evolutionists believe today comes from ancient times.
 
I don't think you'll hear this discussed in biology class. String theory is a theory interpreted from an evolutionary bias.
How can a theory of biology cause a bias in physics? And you specifically said string theory was taught by “evolutionists.”
 
I don't think you'll hear this discussed in biology class.String theory is a theory interpreted from an evolutionary bias. The church fathers would give the same reply then as we do today. The theory may have some seeds of truth in it but not worth dwelling on. I used to love studying cosmology until I realized that most of it is just one metaphysical conjecture piled on to many other metaphysical conjectures. But everything that evolutionists believe today comes from ancient times.

No, it is not so interpreted.

Why lie about that?
 
Here's some information by St.Augustine that destroys a sacred cow today, which is the erroneous belief that Charles Darwin was the mind who discovered the ape to man evolution myth. In fact, Darwin only read literature of the classical era and then called it his own. Today people think Darwin was some great scientist who proved man evolved from apes. But this careless thinking avoids the reality that what came down to us from Darwinian assumptions had been an ancient mystical belief long before Augustine's time. Here, Augustine is speaking about the origin and diversity of humans and some myths which have come about since ancient times.

....

Let's isolate the important part of all that:
for if we did not know monkeys, long tailed apes and chimpanzees are not men but animals, those natural historians who plume themselves on their collection of curiosities might pass them off on us as races of men, and get away with such nonsense

Now, of course, we're not approaching from a position of ignorance as Augustine was, and we know men are in fact apes, phylogenetically placed in the hominid family within the primate order. Augustine, no matter how clever he was, was limited by the inability to obtain objective proof of his assertions.
 
Here's some information by St.Augustine that destroys a sacred cow today, which is the erroneous belief that Charles Darwin was the mind who discovered the ape to man evolution myth.
I don’t think anyone who ever studied evolution believes that. Darwin’s was not the first theory of evolution. His contribution was the concept of natural selection. He was the first to propose a mechanism for evolution that was actually true (though not complete)

In fact, Darwin only read literature of the classical era and then called it his own.
Nothing you cite comes even close to natural selection. How Darwin reached his conclusions is well documented in his notes from the Beagle.
 
Let's isolate the important part of all that:


Now, of course, we're not approaching from a position of ignorance as Augustine was, and we know men are in fact apes, phylogenetically placed in the hominid family within the primate order. Augustine, no matter how clever he was, was limited by the inability to obtain objective proof of his assertions.

Augustine called you hollow philosophers out centuries ago.
 
Augustine was wrong. If you or Augustine have proof positive for an origin of Mankind other than that of evolution from an ape, feel free to present it.

No, Augustine exposes Darwin. How can Augustine be wrong about this living 1000+ years earlier then Darwin? The ape man was an ancient scam and that's what Augustine is exposing here.
 
Back
Top Bottom