Theism is not an attack to deny anyone anything. You have the freedom to believe what you wish.Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Theism is not an attack to deny anyone anything. You have the freedom to believe what you wish.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
I'd say it was your responsibility to verify the authenticity of those stones instead of neglecting to do the 30 second search which would have revealed to you the fact that the supposed discoverer of the stones has confessed to having fabricated them.
The only people who consider those stones meaningful are fundamentalist Christians and ancient astronaut theorists.
But no one ever showed me where the supposed discoverer claimed that they were fake. That so far is merely a claim of someone on this site. If that is the case, then it is the case. However, there is still a tremendous amount of evidence that shows that many cultures had seen real dinosaurs. You all are just in denial of anything that isn't a part of your own fantasies.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
My fantasies? Oh you mean the theory supported by thousands of biology phds who spend their lives studying the natural world and come to the conclusion that evolution best explains their observations.
I suppose you believe in ancient astronauts as well?
You're so full of ****. You're EXACTLY THE SAME WAY YOU CLAIM EVERYONE ELSE TO BE.
There is a misunderstanding here. You have seen the movie, so I have to assume you have some understanding of existence. If there is a god, do you really think it condescended to speak directly to desert people and give them specific laws? Do you think we could conceivably prove or disprove the presence of a god? Do you think what you imagine in a creator gives you license to judge others, or know what "sin" is?
My point in bringing this up is that there very well could be some kind of force, like theists want there to be, but it would have to be too huge to understand, describe, or define. Atheists aren't denying the possibility. After all we have learned and seen, the theist stories defining our existence seem petty, small, assuming, and disrespectful. Disrespectful to life, to science, to me, to you, to earthlings.
Also, Bein, from Wikipedia. I don't like to use Wikipedia, but this information is cited from this article and the following book:
Carroll, Robert P. (2003). The skeptic's dictionary: a collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. New York: Wiley.
As for more saying the stones are false, there's this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. I'm sure they're all disreputable sources, though.In 1973 Uschuya confirmed that he had forged the stones he gave to Cabrera during an interview with Erich von Däniken, copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines but later recanted that claim during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling archaeological artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced an Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung. The Ica stones achieved popular interest when Cabrera abandoned his medical career and opened a museum to feature several thousand of the stones in 1996.[1] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of Cabrera's stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sales of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[2] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[1]
Wrong. A primary goal of your chosen theism is to "spread the word" and convert non-believers. It's an offense to spread this drivel and to make numerous attempts to demean observed science with the intention of putting it on an equal or lower plane than your fantasy. Christians need to stop attempting to knock down progress for the sake of elevating their ages old telephone game. It's a sadistic power play. The intention is to control the masses, to get everyone to "serve" this god fetish, to validate your own masochistic hopes and wishes. Until theists learn to keep their fantasies to themselves, they will be enemies to free thinkers and technology.
Simplified: A person is a fan of a fictional story? Fine. Some people wrote some fables? Cool. Don't tell the world these things are reality and feel angry and sad when the world disagrees. Don't inflict the brainwashing on kids.
Aww, I love Wiki. It's changed the world. In the past, information always came at a price. Nowadays, anyone with computer access can learn some basic information about whatever they want, it's beautiful. Sure some of the information is tampered with but there are lovely Wiki-fascists who devote a large part of their exististance to weeding them out.
...Off topic, sorry.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
Wikipedia's information may not be totally reliable, but it's a great source for links and references.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
I'm sure biologists have found evidence proving the truth of Genesis. They just think its a good idea to tick off the all-powerful creator of the universe.
If there is a God do you think it is still having the same great fun he had listening to the reports of Mark Twain sending him letters from the earth? Probably not because now he can get better, more succulent reports by listening to a thread like this one.
Of course they can. You're misunderstanding my position altogether. What I’m objecting to is the idea that people who merely lack a belief in God are atheists. Lack of belief is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The idea that some caveman, for instance, who has never formed the conception of God is an atheist, seems vacuous to me. The hypothetical caveman lacks a belief about the existence of God. True. But is he an atheist by virtue of that lack? He lacks a belief about the non-existence of God as well. Does that make him a theist? No, he is neither a theist nor an atheist.
At any rate, it is not how the term is and has been used, for millennia. And none of the atheists here are atheists in the sense that they merely lack belief. For, they’ve all formed the conception of God, however imperfectly, and then rejected it. It isn’t just that atheists lack belief in the proposition “God exists,” for they go on to affirm the proposition’s contrary. The atheists here - correct me if I'm wrong, atheists - all agree with the proposition: "God doesn't exist" or else "Probably, God doesn't exist." And, it seems to me, that is what makes them atheists. And that is a metaphysical truth-claim. Atheists, like theists, claim to know something about the world, about reality.
Remember, there are many different sorts of definition. Standard dictionaries usually give nominal definitions, which are of little use to us here. We need an essential definition. Here are some more profitable definitions of “atheism,” none of which are consistent with the idea that atheism is merely a lack of belief. The first calls it a “belief,” the second a “position that affirms,” and the third a “doctrine.”
Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy: “The belief that God – especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God – does not exist.”
Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God.”
Oxford Companion to Philosophy: “Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God.”
Pardon me, but this is rubbish. Atheists don't have to take any leaps of faith to say that there is no god in this reality. If a god exists anywhere at all, it is, as of now, not known to us. I don't have a God. I don't have theism. If I get some, I'll let you know.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
