Atheist messiah

[arcticpenguin]

I found this through a link posted by Darwin in another thread.

Darwin Bedford Proclaims to be Atheist Messiah (http://www.atheists.net/pages/messiah.html)

That's right, an atheist messiah.

"The world needs a catalytic leader that will free people from their need to believe."
...
Only time will tell whether Bedford is just a tad jealous of Jesus Christ or whether he really can develop the wherewithal to come across with the Promised Land.

[Lord Kenneth]

Nonsense; I'm the God of Atheism.

[Phil]

Hallelujah!! The prophecy has been fulfilled!!

:con2:Uh . . . Wait a minute. . . Never mind.

[hammegk]

Damn, he's playing with fire. MM O'hair may come back & haunt him, huhh?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I found this through a link posted by Darwin in another thread.I remember that thread. This Bedford guy is a nut. I wouldn't follow him down the street if we happened to be going the same way.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Nonsense; I'm the God of Atheism.
Correction: King of Atheism.

[Yahweh]

I dont like these self-proclaimed messiahs. I dont remember the online poll, no. This man up and decided "Hmmm, I bet I'm the messiah, no one else is".

I want a new Atheist Messiah. I vote for Mr. Randi.

We have the atheist "religion", we now have an atheist Messiah, the next step is the Atheist Crusades!

[rwald]

Of course, we're going to need atheist churches first...and an atheist scripture.

[Lord Emsworth]

And we need to reject the only lukewarm Atheists

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by rwald
Of course, we're going to need atheist churches first...and an atheist scripture.
Atheist Church: James Randi Educational Foundation

Atheist Scripture: Science, evolution, anything by Stephen Hawking... of course our scripture is a boring read. Perhaps we should invent our own bloody violent history back before the dawn of intelligence... we should draw our inspiration from the Evil Dead movies...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
And we need to reject the only lukewarm Atheists
What would that be... an agnostic. No, there fine. They are like philosophers. What this brand new atheist religion needs now is philosophers.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Yahweh

What would that be... an agnostic.

Yes, Agnostics, and Atheists who don't reject Agnosticism :p Burn them :p

I was, of course, just kidding. But the idea of some kind of Atheistic "cause" seems to me pretty self-contradictory.

[DialecticMaterialist]

http://www.mysticla.com/system/q-2gf.jpg

[EdipisReks]

i can't wait until the Atheist Rapture.

[DialecticMaterialist]

http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/gamespot/muffinman.jpg

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
And we need to reject the only lukewarm Atheists

BURN THEM! Burn the heretics! To ensure our purity and salvation we must reject those who don't firmly reject those who don't firmly reject the imposition of dogma. Oh, wait, that means we should reject what I just said, which means . . . oh my poor head.

[AP's sock puppet]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
i can't wait until the Atheist Rapture.
It has already happened a couple of times - think adulterated Kool-Aid and white Nikes.

[Dragonrock]

Be calm my children. Come, join me as we learn of the ways of the Taco...

[rwald]

So, the Atheist Rapture is when everyone who's not a atheist commits suicide, and the Earth becomes our Paradise? Sounds like an idea!

[Fnlou]

Hello Atheist,

Interesting name you have there......."Darwin Bedford". Were you named after Charles Darwin the evolutionist? Have you ever wondered why alligators have not "evolved" during the course of the millions of years they have been on this planet? You'd think that they would have started walking upright by now and asking for their "rights" to not be made into shoes and handbags. Of course, they haven't.....and we humans will do with them as we wish - protect them as "endangered species" or convert them into a "nice belt", whatever we care to do in any given decade, just as we always have since we came to be.

Anyway, as you invite email from your website and I found a link to it posted on another, I thought I'd give you some "food for thought". I find your arguments against religion and/or the existence of GOD to be pathetic in the extreme. You offer no substantial, credible, or demonstrable alternative explaination for the human condition whatsoever. For example, you state in one of your "posts" -

"The world needs a catalytic leader that will free people from their need to believe."

Hmmmmm....So, you have formed a belief system within your own mind that the world needs someone (specifically you) to save them from their own "need". I'm assuming you believe this because you believe your own thoughts to be superior to those who might disagree with you (as evidenced by your writings)? So following your own logic, these words you have posted from your own mind on your own website are words of a superior mind? If so, then do you propose that your own statement regarding "words" and their "truthfulness" doesn't apply to you? You stated -

"However, many of the words we use carry some untruth and since we use words in order to communicate our experiences, much is lost or distorted in the process."

I think you have revealed a great deal of information about yourself in that quote. Very nice of you to inform the reader to be wary of your words, as they most certainly do "carry some untruth".

This "untruth" you write of is further evidenced by this quote of yours -

"When I succeed, unimaginable global jubilation will come to pass and people will gladly send me money; invite me for dinner; compose and perform on my behalf; and women will howl my name during intense orgasm."

Sorry Darwin, but if this is your stated goal in life then I don't hold out much hope for you. I don't think any bookies in Vegas would give you very favorable odds either. This much you can take to the bank - if you believe yourself capable of "freeing people from their need to believe", then you might start by realizing that the alternative you propose - "howling your name during intense orgasm" , simply does not measure up to the prospect of everlasting life, and your efforts are most assuredly for naught.

But then again, you don't desire everlasting life do you? You stated -

"I reckon that even if you could have things exactly as you wanted them to be, that you would eventually get bored there."

You reckon so huh Darwin? Well that certainly doesn't demonstrate a superior intellect. In fact, you yourself admitted that - "Personally, I wouldn't want to live longer than say, 140 years."

Hmmmm....So the great superior intellect who seeks to "free the people from their need to believe" can't even imagine entertaining himself for a mere 140 years? Sorry Darwin, but you most certainly won't live 140 years, and I don't think you have enough intellect to sustain even half that amount of time.

Perhaps the most disturbing quote of all on your site is the following -

"this is love literature"

Of course, you are correct in saying it, but not for the reasons that you might expect. The dictionary defines the word LOVE thusly -

"love ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lv)
n.
A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.

Sexual passion.
Sexual intercourse.
A love affair.
An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.

A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
Love Mythology. Eros or Cupid.
often Love Christianity. Charity.
Sports. A zero score in tennis."

Personally, I think you have a very deep "LOVE" for yourself and for your own beliefs, but I don't think you meant to infer or imply that notion on the Atheist Site you admin. What you clearly meant your readers to assume is that you "love" them and/or all people - thereby justifying your need to "save" them. But you DON'T Darwin! You don't love all humans as you obviously understand that most of them have a belief system (or systems) contrary to your own. Therefore, by your own admissions and by the ridiculous assumptions and conclusions you draw on your website, you do not have a "deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness".

You are incapable of having a "oneness" with humanity because you despise their "needs". You do not speak the truth because "words we use carry some untruth". Therefore, by your own admission, you do not LOVE humanity, you are not "ONE" with humanity, and you DO NOT SPEAK THE TRUTH!

Another liar amongst many. You are no "Messiah" Darwin. You are just one more fool on the internet trying to "figure it all out". You haven't, but I trust you will when your day comes, and IT WILL.

GOOD "LUCK"

[Martin]

Originally posted by Fnlou
Have you ever wondered why alligators have not "evolved" during the course of the millions of years they have been on this planet?Why would they? Evolution neither requires nor predicts vast change in all populations, you know.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Fnlou
Hello Atheist,

BLAH BLAH F$CKING BLAH

GOOD "LUCK"

that was perhaps the most retarded thing i have ever read. considering that i have read Jedi Knight threads, Billiefan2000 threads, and Uninteresting Ian threads, that says a lot.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Fnlou:

http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/gamespot/flameINC/FB2.jpg

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Fnlou:

http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/gamespot/flameINC/FB2.jpg

how apropos :D

[DialecticMaterialist]

Are you trying to totally undermine your credibility? Darwin's theory is considered as solid as gravity by the scientific community.

In fact the nations leading scientific institution and magazine have gone on record to say just that:

Scientific american: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

The National Academy of Sciences: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/EVOLUTION/index.html

As has the National Center for Science Education:
http://www.ncseweb.org/

As has PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

As has every leading scientist in this nation, including 72 Nobel Prize winners:


Evolution meets all the criteria of a good science; scientific creationism fails as science. In the U. S. Supreme Court case of Edwards v. Aguillard a remarkable friend-of-court brief was submitted by 72 Nobel laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations which exposed "scientific creationism" as a fraud. I know of no other document of belief supported by so many Nobel prizewinners!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-misc.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

Now I'm sorry to say this but I don't believe your non sequitur "criticisms" undermine a scientific theory supported by this nation's leading scientific journal, academy, science education center and 72 Nobel Prize winners.


Evolution simply is not driven by progress but by necessity. Creatures do not evolve unless 1) They have to. and 2) They can in time. In fact many fail to do this, which is why they go extinct.

Why don't you tell me why God would create animals just to let them go extinct? This seems like quite a waste of time, especially seeing as how 99.9 percent of all animals that ever existed are now extinct according to scientists.

Crocodiles simply do not have the necessary pressure or means to evolve an intellect, nor the time, so they in all likelyhood when faced with predators as intelligent as us will simply go extinct (unless the intelligent creatures decide otherwise or some catastrophy befalls them.)

Anyone who even had a basic understanding of Darwinism would know this.

[Diamond]

Time for an atheist jihad, methinks :rolleyes:

[Fnlou]

I was merely pointing out the intersting name, but I'm in no position to argue the "scientific merits" of Darwinism as I am not a scientist. There ARE scientists who disagree with it and there are "Nobel Prize Winners" amongst them.

http://www.evolusham.com/

You know what they say about "opinions". Everybody's got one - Nobel or not.....

Enjoy :)

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Fnlou
I was merely pointing out the intersting name, but I'm in no position to argue the "scientific merits" of Darwinism as I am not a scientist. ...
Just in case some day you tire of being an ignoramous: http://www.talkorigins.org/

[Martin]

Opinions are irrelevant here. Evolution is science, creationism isn't. That site you posted is a lot of nonsense, and there are plenty of people here who can prove it. The very first thing on that site is blatant deception - a selectively edited Darwin quote. Here's the full thing, with the creationist edit in bold.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

And here's the second part:

Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is more than enough to stagger any one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.

Creationists, having no scientific argument, very often resort to this kind of flagrant dishonesty.

[Fnlou]

So I suppose each of you have your own "Nobel Prize" and you know better than these folks:

"God is very difficult to define, but I feel his presence. I feel an omnipresence everywhere and something, at the same time, rather personal." Charles H. Townes - Nobel Prize in Physics 1964

"If I had no other data than the early chapters of Genesis, some of the Psalms and other passages of Scripture, I would have arrived at essentially the same picture of the origin of the universe, as is indicated by the scientific data." Arno Penzias - Nobel Prize in Physics 1978

"I was brought up a Protestant Christian and I’ve been in a number of denominations…I go to church to a very good Methodist church." - Arthur Schawlow - Nobel Prize in Physics 1981

"shortly after Jane and I moved to Gaithersburg, we joined Fairhaven United Methodist Church. We had not been regular church-goers during our years at MIT, but Ed and Jean Williams invited us to Fairhaven and there we found a congregation whose ethnic and racial diversity offered an irresistible richness of worship experience." William D. Phillips - Nobel Prize in Physics 1997


Now quickly - RUN TO YOUR SEARCH ENGINES! :)

[arcticpenguin]

Now quickly, since the topic is evolution, how many of those on your list are biologists? Even if those quotes are genuine and not taken out of context, those people are speaking outside their field of expertise.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Fnlou
So I suppose each of you have your own "Nobel Prize" and you know better than these folksSilly troll, do try to come up with something at least vaguely resembling a logical argument.

[Jet Grind]

It's clear to me that fnlou is just a creationist troll.

So I'm not going to comment on much, but...

...Could you please name some of these nobel prize winners who disagree with evolution? And furthermore, are they scientists? If they are, are they in a field relevant to evolution?

I'd also reccommend that you do a google search of "Project Steve," you'll be surprised with what you find.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Fnlou


blah blah blah irrelevant irrationalism blah blah blah about nobel winners in fields not biology



*yawn*

[rwald]

Also, it's important to note that for some, belief in God does not equat to belief in creationism. There are those who believe that evolution created the human body, and that God then inserted a "spirit" into that body. So, just because someone believes that God created "man" in the most general sense does not mean that they disagree with evolution.

Of course, all the people who matter already knew that, but anyway...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by rwald
Also, it's important to note that for some, belief in God does not equat to belief in creationism. There are those who believe that evolution created the human body, and that God then inserted a "spirit" into that body. So, just because someone believes that God created "man" in the most general sense does not mean that they disagree with evolution.

Of course, all the people who matter already knew that, but anyway...
Good points....

Try telling that to a classroom full of teenagers. Some of them cannot use there brains to remotely understand other peoples beliefs. They will yell at you stuff like "How can you believe in Heaven, but not Hell". I dont know, ask a mormon. Just the same, some Christians believe God influences evolution (yet another point teenagers have a hard time trying to grasp).

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by rwald
Also, it's important to note that for some, belief in God does not equat to belief in creationism. There are those who believe that evolution created the human body, and that God then inserted a "spirit" into that body. So, just because someone believes that God created "man" in the most general sense does not mean that they disagree with evolution.

Of course, all the people who matter already knew that, but anyway...

The last episode of the PBS Evolution series is entirely devoted to that subject. There are actually various ways that people can reconcile Christianity and evolution. That doesn't satsify those ho want an ultra-liberal interpretation of the bible though.

Facsinating stuff.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Fnlou
So I suppose each of you have your own "Nobel Prize" and you know better than these folks:

"God is very difficult to define, but I feel his presence. I feel an omnipresence everywhere and something, at the same time, rather personal." Charles H. Townes - Nobel Prize in Physics 1964

"If I had no other data than the early chapters of Genesis, some of the Psalms and other passages of Scripture, I would have arrived at essentially the same picture of the origin of the universe, as is indicated by the scientific data." Arno Penzias - Nobel Prize in Physics 1978

"I was brought up a Protestant Christian and I’ve been in a number of denominations…I go to church to a very good Methodist church." - Arthur Schawlow - Nobel Prize in Physics 1981

"shortly after Jane and I moved to Gaithersburg, we joined Fairhaven United Methodist Church. We had not been regular church-goers during our years at MIT, but Ed and Jean Williams invited us to Fairhaven and there we found a congregation whose ethnic and racial diversity offered an irresistible richness of worship experience." William D. Phillips - Nobel Prize in Physics 1997


Now quickly - RUN TO YOUR SEARCH ENGINES! :)
I want to quickly reply to your post subject "Such a friendly forum..."... yes, we are a friendly bunch, and (for the most part/with the exception of the few idiots) we're intelligent also.

I'm not impressed by quotes from famous people. I'm not jolted by witty analogies (remember that famous inkcartridge-humanconsciousness analogy a while ago). Super cool! You've come across a website that lists quotes by creationists who won Nobel Prizes, does that somehow make creationism any more valid of a belief? Of course not! Science validates a belief, not the actions of famous/intelligent/respected/Nobel prize winning people.

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I'm not impressed by quotes from famous people. I'm not jolted by witty analogies (remember that famous inkcartridge-humanconsciousness analogy a while ago). Super cool! You've come across a website that lists quotes by creationists who won Nobel Prizes, does that somehow make creationism any more valid of a belief? Of course not! Science validates a belief, not the actions of famous/intelligent/respected/Nobel prize winning people.

First of all, none of the quotes he provided show any of these "nobel prize winners" (they provide no source for me to verify their validity, so I guess I'll just take his word for it for now) Explicitly profressing creationism. Their simply talking about their religious ubringings for the most part. Even if the quotes are valid and the "laurettes" are religious, that does not make them creationists. Many biologists, zoologists, antroplogists, etcetera are religious and have no problem reconciling evolution with their religious beliefs (refer: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/index.html)

It's clear to me that this guy is simply trolling about.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fnlou
So I suppose each of you have your own "Nobel Prize" and you know better than these folks:


Because an Economist maintains an irrational belief in invisible super-beings, doesn't mean I should re-think my beliefs, does it?

If I provided a few anti-biblical quotes by ex-priests to you, would you care?

You are the one burdened with a rigid dogma you can't escape. Science is a process. Evolution is a fact. And as this becomes more and more obvious to the masses, one would expect to see a God/evolution belief arise.

Now if you would like to do some battle in the scriptures, I'd love to joust with you.

[Quasi]

I hate to change away from the evolution discussion, but this atheist guy does not think critically:

Quote: "wherever there is hunger there is runaway population growth. And it appears that overpopulation is leading us into a 'Hell' on Earth." says Bedford"

There is no actual overpopulation problem- we have plenty of food etc. It is only that people have stopped dying like flies, which makes it look like we are heading for overpopulation. Further, hunger is caused by political and socioeconomic reasons. I will agree that sometimes a religion is responsible and sometimes not.

[CapelDodger]

Can we get back to the Atheist Crusades? I like the sound of that, although I rather think there's a problem with the "Crusade" term, what with the Cross and all. Would Jihad be a better option?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Keep in mind this little gem:

I was prejudiced against -


http://www.atheists.net/

Wow gee I hate to be prejudiced against. lol.

Uncritical? Uneducated? Unlearned? Nah.

[TwoShanks]

His dictionary appears to be slightly odd..

Darwin Bedford says:
"Webster's definitions:
messiah -- any leader and liberator of any oppressed people."


Webster's says:

"messiah

\Mes*si"ah\, n. [Heb. m[=a]sh[=i]akh anointed, fr. m[=a]shakh to anoint. Cf. Messias.] The expected king and deliverer of the Hebrews; the Savior; Christ.

And told them the Messiah now was born. --Milton.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. "