Atheist knowledge

[octave]

I wasn't tempted to buy the book but from memory they found that dimensions on the moon matched ancient dimensions on earth and they hypothesise. Since ancient civilizations on earth, apparently without the aid of aliens knew the earth was round, knew it's dimensions, mapped the star system and probably what they could see of the moon,

The idea that early humans could not have known that the earth was spherical without outside help is just not right, the evidence would have been available to early observers see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Indian_astronomy

 

It seems to me to be a huge stretch of Occams Law to satisfy our incredulity of early knowledge by hypothesising time travel and the construction of an artificial moon (not that moons are rare in this solar system).

 

By the way this book is freely available online https://contraeducacao.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/who-built-the-moon_-knight-christopher.pdf

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs, since you highlight how flawed the reported word of god is(ie the bible/s), whose word can I believe?

Bex asked a similar question earlier, and I just gave him a one liner because I had to rush out.

 

I want to post more Christian era detail, and then I'll try to answer that one.

 

 

[facthunter]

Not getting too much for me.in terms of the overwhelming argument.. Turbs ( I thought someone would bring that up) There is no point to it. (Even IF you were a doctor of Divinity). The% figures were from what I would have considered a reliable source and were not disputed in the context of the presentation and I don't just read to hear what I like to hear.. I just wonder how you know how others think. The older I get and the more I learn, the more I realise that there is to learn. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

The idea that early humans could not have known that the earth was spherical without outside help is just not right, the evidence would have been available to early observers see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Indian_astronomyIt seems to me to be a huge stretch of Occams Law to satisfy our incredulity of early knowledge by hypothesising time travel and the construction of an artificial moon (not that moons are rare in this solar system).

 

By the way this book is freely available online https://contraeducacao.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/who-built-the-moon_-knight-christopher.pdf

This is what I wrote ,,,,,Since ancient civilizations on earth, apparently without the aid of aliens knew the earth was round, knew it's dimensions, ........

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not getting too much for me.in terms of the overwhelming argument.. Turbs ( I thought someone would bring that up) There is no point to it. (Even IF you were a doctor of Divinity). The% figures were from what I would have considered a reliable source and were not disputed in the context of the presentation and I don't just read to hear what I like to hear.. I just wonder how you know how others think. The older I get and the more I learn, the more I realise that there is to learn. Nev

Well I don't know what you are talking about, but I agree totally with the last sentence.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Who are these people? There are bigots and snobs in every town. Stay away from them Don.

Plenty of them and Don is correct on this one. I have also noticed a large percentage of Born Agains who want nothing to do with others in a most un-Christian way.

 

By the way, these followers in Sweden are known as Bjorn Agains .......

 

Bex asked a similar question earlier, and I just gave him a one liner because I had to rush out.I want to post more Christian era detail, and then I'll try to answer that one.

Thank you for that answer, I look forward to the more detailed one.

 

 

[octave]

Since ancient civilizations on earth, apparently without the aid of aliens knew the earth was round, knew it's dimensions, ........

 

Yes and I am saying that it is not necessarily amazing that early humans through observation could work out that the earth was spherical. What I am saying is that there is no mystery that requires aliens or a hollow moon. This is a criticism of the book, not you (unless you believe this stuff)

 

 

[turboplanner]

OK sorry, I thought you were returning my words in reverse.

 

 

[Teckair]

On the Sunday Night program about 2 1/2 years ago they had a story about Jesus, at that time it was claimed not only is he real but he has returned and is living at Murgon right here in Queensland!! His believers/followers/cult members/suckers were convinced that of all the places in the world he could have come back to he choose Murgon here in Queensland. So that settles it, it must all be real.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

The idea that early humans could not have known that the earth was spherical without outside help is just not right, the evidence would have been available to early observers see

Or they could have just read the Bible - it teaches a circular earth which 'hangs on nothing'.... this portion written more than 3000 years ago.

 

Whilst it's not intended to be, or written as, a scientific textbook the science therein is indeed accurate.

 

 

[horsefeathers]

Actual chapter and verse please.

 

And is it circular or globular...ie disc vs soccer ball?

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

All listed in the link Thomas.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

It would be very disappointing if people who were capable of written communication, religion or not, weren't also capable of working out that, at least their region, was atop a sphere even if they didn't know what was beyond the edge of that sphere.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Turbs, since you highlight how flawed the reported word of god is(ie the bible/s), whose word can I believe?

The Chaser.

 

 

[Marty_d]

... And by the way, please ton't pick on GG; he's been under siege for days from atheists who just can't leave it at not believing...

No, he's just had his more ridiculous posts answered. Don't tell me that one person is allowed to post all sorts of unproven, unrealistic stuff and no-one else is allowed to answer. It was actually the Gnu who started this whole thing with a snide swipe at atheists, remember.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

All listed in the link Thomas.

Do you know that true science will not recognise an end result first? Your science, like Global Warming, assumes a result then finds it's way there, that is not discovery, it is only a way to a means.

 

You would get a lot more positive feedback if you took the line such as "Hey there's some interesting parallels in religion..." rather than trying to define everything as religion.

 

 

[Marty_d]

The worthwhile stuff in the bible can be compressed down to 11 words: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's it. All the rest is filler, and only confuses people who think it's non-fiction.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Just imagine that somebody who has been away for a couple of weeks and then log onto RF. It is going to take them a very long time to read this thread in its entirety.

 

 

[turboplanner]

We've only got back 2000 years so far , we have to get back at least 60,000, including your lot.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Do you know that true science will not recognise an end result first? Your science, like Global Warming, assumes a result then finds it's way there, that is not discovery, it is only a way to a means.

Good to hear you've denounced Darwinian evolution theory which is exactly as you describe. Started with a conclusion but the theoretical supporting evidence never panned out.

 

But simply because the Bible states a few things about the solar system which with modern science we now know to be true I'm not getting your objection, it's nonsensical. Perhaps you didn't read the post properly.

 

 

[horsefeathers]

Lets clear up one thing that's bugging me, Gnu.

 

Without reference to the bible or ancient texts, why do YOU (not anyone else) think evolution is unsupportable. There's nothing in the bible that mentions Darwin's origin of the species, so why does it bend you out of shape?

 

 

[nomadpete]

Yes,Dazza, it would take a long time to read it all, but not long to get the gist of the debate.

 

And Gnu, judging from what I have read, I believe that contrary to your assertion, Darwin did not start with an answer and then set out to justify it. It seems that he used logical deduction to reach his conclusion, and that conclusion was not actually in alignment with his previous (religious) beliefs. However, he still chose to go with the logical proposal. Because the evidence does pan out.

 

Anyway why does it matter? Evolution doesn't rule out a god's participation in 'creating' the whole scenario.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

My opinion is actually not the relevant factor horse, I'm just pointing out that the theory has failed due to an absence of supporting physical and historical evidence. It should be accepted by all of us that a scientific claim requires evidence to back it up. It also happens to be a comforter theory for the majority of atheists who cling to it dearly simply because the alternatives are unpalatable.

 

I hope that anyone trawling through this info like Nomadpete will at least be open minded enough to question this stuff and go searching for themselves. Be brave folks! One hundred or so years ago it may have seemed plausible still but despite repeated attempts with hoaxes (Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce, Java man etc) with advances in science and genetic understanding it can now be seen that any significant species change beyond 'natural selection' (selective breeding) it is utterly impossible, not to mention abiogenesis which is in the upper stratosphere above the probability scale. Even Charles Darwin didn't go that far.

 

On the education side with controversial topics (evolution, religions etc) I personally believe that children should be shown all the various theories and evidences for each and not be exposed only to one view. This is currently not the approach accepted in state schools or universities here, which are actually much more narrow minded and intolerant than they used to be. Global warming theory is another example of this. Again, just my idea - many here strongly disagree - and you are totally welcome to raise your children with whatever level of exposure to these ideas you see fit.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Gnu,

 

Don't confuse Darwinian theory with athiesm. They aren't directly connected. Just because I happen to be an athiest, doesn't mean that I cling on to anybody's theory. I do have an open mind and because I tend to question things, I have developed my own spiritual connections which do not relate to any particular doctrine. Certainly I avoid the conventional christian / biblical dogma. No offense intended to your belief structure - I just don't go along with it. (and don't feel any need to justify / convert anybody to my way of thinking). I do enjoy the debate though.

 

 

[octave]

It should be accepted by all of us that a scientific claim requires evidence to back it up

The problem is there is evidence, it is simply incorrect for you to say there is no evidence. On what basis other than your biblical beliefs do you make this claim? We know that viruses mutate, the flu vaccine given last year is different than the one given this year because we know viruses mutate, they evolve. You can keep saying it is all rubbish but that does not make it so.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_evolution

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_01

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

 

with advances in science and genetic understanding it can now be seen that any significant species change beyond 'natural selection' (selective breeding) it is utterly impossible,

Where "can it now be seen"? What are these advances why can I not find them in the literature ?

 

Can you provide me with good solid scientific evidence that the theory has been disproven? Where is the debate in the literature? Where are the medical schools and universities abandoning the theory? In what way has the genetic evidence been discredited?

 

My atheism no more depends on the theory of evolution than it does on the theory of relativity, it has no bearing on it at all. If the theory were truly to be overturned tomorrow it would not mean I would suddenly believe in god (wouldn't know which one to choose anyway)

 

I have no problem with other peoples belief in god as long as long as it is not imposed on me either through law, education or the trashing of science (without good evidence).

 

I also don't mind if you personally don't believe the evidence but to say it has been discredited within science and education is a testable claim that would require evidence.