Atheist knowledge

[bexrbetter]

Good to hear you've denounced Darwinian evolution theory which is exactly as you describe.

Me?

 

Have you not read any of my posts? I never announced Darwin, nor any other form of greater knowledge, I just go about my own things in my own way.

 

Actually I just looked up the meanings and I am closer to an Agnostic rather than an Atheist;

 

Agnostic;

 

noun

 

1.

 

A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

 

Synonyms;

 

Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An Agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A Skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

 

......

 

I, however, don't like labels at all but if I have to have one, you can call me an Agfideleptic I guess.

 

 

[eightyknots]

You have your parameters Turbo, but about 80% of USA people believe the bible is the absolute word of God. About 3% know the name of the first chapter. Everyone want's to select THEIR version of the "truth" in the writings. You seem to know a lot about how atheists think.I doubt you do at all. How would you? Nev

The first chapter of the bible doesn't have a "name" as such. The first book is called Genesis. Even if only a number of them know the name of this book, they are aware of the contents. By the same token, Richard Dawkins, no doubt, is well aware of the contents of Charles Darwin's book but he also didn't know the name of Darwin's book on evolution:

 

 

[facthunter]

80 knots, Chapter, Book, verse or whatever. The other fact mentioned was that they had never read the bible. The important point is they believed it to be the "absolute word of god". If people right now in some parts of the world question the Koran they are being summarily despatched (this very day by a policeman with an axe in a cell) Of course that doesn't happen in "Christian" countries but try running for office in the US as an atheist, and you won't get anywhere at all. "God Bless America" and with many (such as Bush) and the rest of you can get nuked. (Especially if you are sitting on "OUR" oil). or democratically elect a left leaning government, that might hinder their corporations making heaps of dough from the citizens. GOD has some strange bedfellows...Nev.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ah, the red rag rides again. Can you give me a few examples of where and which Bush nuked people?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Ah, the red rag rides again. Can you give me a few examples of where and which Bush nuked people?

Neither of them used nuclear weapons, but it could be argued that the death toll from the second Bush's ignorance and stupidity was far greater than either the Nagasaki or Hiroshima bombs.

 

Funny cattle the American voters. Even though Obama is making progress in cleaning up the mess left by Bush No. 2, they seem to hate the current president more than that disgustingly destructive GWB. Their value system needs an overhaul.

 

 

[Marty_d]

The first chapter of the bible doesn't have a "name" as such. The first book is called Genesis. Even if only a number of them know the name of this book, they are aware of the contents. By the same token, Richard Dawkins, no doubt, is well aware of the contents of Charles Darwin's book but he also didn't know the name of his book on evolution:

 

Ah, the christian websites. It seems like every one of them has this video in which Dawkins can't remember the full title of Origin of Species. Almost seems like they can't attack his science so they pick on the fact that he forgot one book title. Is that really the best they can do?

 

 

[facthunter]

Didn't mention REDS Turbs. Find out how many have been murdered in South America, all promoted by people Like Ronny Raygun etc. But that's OK they don't think RIGHT. US doesn't accept the right of a people to elect who THEY don't like. Remember the NZ government that had an anti-nuke policy. Completely cut off by the Republican led government of the US that sees arms as influence over votes of the citizenry Little NZ with a population of that of Melbourne..Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

Neither of them used nuclear weapons, but it could be argued that the death toll from the second Bush's ignorance and stupidity was far greater than either the Nagasaki or Hiroshima bombs.

Funny cattle the American voters. Even though Obama is making progress in cleaning up the mess left by Bush No. 2, they seem to hate the current president more than that disgustingly destructive GWB. Their value system needs an overhaul.

The problem is that they don't all vote. Look at the midterm turnouts from a couple of days ago - very low numbers of young people and African-Americans. There, like here, we need politicians of substance rather than the short-term blinkered idiots we have, because otherwise people just won't engage with the political process.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

The problem is there is evidence

Ask yourself why so many elaborate hoaxes? Bit of pig, horse and chimpanzee cobbled together in failed attempts to show a 'missing link', kinda funny really but it fooled millions of people. If you are curious do yourself a favour - on any controversial topic Wiki is not a reliable resource (broken by design) so if you looked further you would discover the lack of evidence I refer to. No fossil evidence of species changing, no genetic evidence, no mechanism to add complex information to DNA to make any of this happen, staggeringly complex cell and genetic structures which cannot function with even one of dozens of materials and proteins present, no purpose for partly formed reproductive organs, 'junk' DNA that turned out to be not junk, 'vestigial organs' that turned out to have a necessary purpose.... the list goes on and on.

 

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)

That's actually not difficult octave. Personally it's not a matter of choosing a belief by blind faith and just hoping it all pans out. If God created us with a logical mind his teaching must also follow logic and have supporting evidence. For those that genuinely seek God he will make himself known to you, those that repent and believe are given to experience the transforming power of the Holy Spirit within them. Worshiping an unresponsive God doesn't appeal to me at all, might as well address an inanimate idol. I get the impression you really seem to think Christians unthinkingly cling to some vague hope.

 

 

[facthunter]

When this mighty transformation you speak of takes over one would expect some very noticeable changes to the people concerned and their behaviour which should change for the better? I see little evidence of that . Perhaps the confessional is letting some off too easily? That's for you to delve into.

 

Regarding the good one would expect to flow AFTER the revelation and personal communication with the almighty.... Can you show me concrete some examples of it? All I can see is god believers trying to kill, convert, disparage others who don't share their BELIEFS. (there is no other word for it). Have a look at the world around you and YOU set out to disparage non theists by ridicule. The end may justify the means for YOU but I don't agree. YOU reckon YOU have all the answers.. Those who profess GOD are better. That's pretty offensive an assumption.... No?

 

 

[rgmwa]

If God created us ...

... "If"? ... I thought the Bible removed all doubt?

 

If God created us ...

... then who created God? Sorry to sound so simplistic Gnu.

[eightyknots]

Ask yourself why so many elaborate hoaxes? Bit of pig, horse and chimpanzee cobbled together in failed attempts to show a 'missing link', kinda funny really but it fooled millions of people. If you are curious do yourself a favour - on any controversial topic Wiki is not a reliable resource (broken by design) so if you looked further you would discover the lack of evidence I refer to. No fossil evidence of species changing, no genetic evidence, no mechanism to add complex information to DNA to make any of this happen, staggeringly complex cell and genetic structures which cannot function with even one of dozens of materials and proteins present, no purpose for partly formed reproductive organs, 'junk' DNA that turned out to be not junk, 'vestigial organs' that turned out to have a necessary purpose.... the list goes on and on.

 

 

That's actually not difficult octave. Personally it's not a matter of choosing a belief by blind faith and just hoping it all pans out. If God created us with a logical mind his teaching must also follow logic and have supporting evidence. For those that genuinely seek God he will make himself known to you, those that repent and believe are given to experience the transforming power of the Holy Spirit within them. Worshiping an unresponsive God doesn't appeal to me at all, might as well address an inanimate idol. I get the impression you really seem to think Christians unthinkingly cling to some vague hope.

Here is the question for those who 'believe' in Darwinism/evolution: Where is the evidence? Not, “Where is the interpretation?” I know textbooks are full of evidence of change, but fail to mention the genetic direction of that change (genetic change is always for the worse; there is always a loss of genetic information in change). Please put aside religious implications and answer the question about the evidence:

 

1. Where is verified evidence that the mind boggling complexity of life has come from non-life, despite chemical laws of equilibrium going the wrong direction?

 

2. Where is verified evidence that natural selection processes increase genetic complexity over time leading to new physiological features?

 

Please respect those who do not believe that a frog does not turn into a prince, even if you give it a few million years.

 

Please respect those who do not believe in someone else’s “god” (the god of evolution) who uses death, suffering and waste to make something good.

 

Please respect those who love true science, which requires operational evidence, not conjecture.

 

Please respect those who love the God of the Bible, which unashamedly requires faith.

 

One does not contradict the other: each keeps to its own sphere.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Ah, the christian websites. It seems like every one of them has this video in which Dawkins can't remember the full title of Origin of Species. Almost seems like they can't attack his science so they pick on the fact that he forgot one book title. Is that really the best they can do?

The point of this video is to expose the hollowness of Dawkins' claims that there are Christians out there who don't know the first of the 66 books that make up the Bible. When he was questioned about the name of Dawkins' own 'bible', he did not know the name of that either. If you find it so bad that this is published on youtube, why did you not find it strange that Richard Dawkins made a big deal of the fact that there were those who did not know one of the books of the bible?

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Ah, the christian websites. It seems like every one of them has this video in which Dawkins can't remember the full title of Origin of Species. Almost seems like they can't attack his science so they pick on the fact that he forgot one book title. Is that really the best they can do?

You could ask the same question of Australian Politics.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Old Koreelah and Facthunter, this is for you, I know we always have thread drift , but slipping political hate into this discussion is more a reflection of you than the rest of us.

 

To suggest that the President of the United States of America bypasses the 435 members of Congress and 100 members of the Senate and kills or "nukes" people is just sick.

 

Similar suggestions from various people the the Prime Minister of Australia bypasses the 150 Members of Parliament and 76 Senators and takes unilateral action shows the degree of ignorance there can be of our Parliamentary system.

 

To assume that the 761 people who are led by the two leaders are simple dummies with no intelligence drooling from the mount while the two leaders carry out an agenda of pillage and killing, doesn't belong in intelligent discussions.

 

Perhaps this speech, the best I've heard in three decades might serve to show there is goodness in the world. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-05/pearson-a-salute-to-australias-greatest-white-elder/5868730

 

 

[turboplanner]

... then who created God? Sorry to sound so simplistic Gnu.

That's the identical type of question I asked of the Big Bang theory, or what was before the beginning. Our current mind can't process this, but maybe could if we were trained - I gave the example of the New Guinea Cargo Cult to illustrate this.

 

So that question is one all and neutralises both sides, but there are plenty more signs yet to be talked about.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

To assume that the 761 people who are led by the two leaders are simple dummies with no intelligence

We are talking about politicians aren't we?

 

Perhaps this speech, the best I've heard in three decades might serve to show there is goodness in the world. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-05/pearson-a-salute-to-australias-greatest-white-elder/5868730

I agree to disagree thanks, would be a whole new direction of thread though.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Some more key dates for the origins of the Bible:

 

Dates

 

11th/10th Centuries BC – Oldest texts from the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)

 

The Tanakh was developed over 1,000 years

 

Some is written in Hebrew, some in Aramaic

 

Oral Torah – Talmud in two versions – Jerusalem, Babylonian – written down 200 BC

 

Claim that Moses memorised the whole while he was on the mountain.

 

Revelation to Moses 1312 BC (or 1280 BC)

 

Regular public reading of the Torah introduced c537 BC

 

The Old Testament was translated into Greek in the third century BC (LXX).

 

So we now have a selection of authors bracketing the the time of Jesus Christ, authors who may have been on the scene of some events rather than writing 1,000 years after it all happened, and an indication that the Old Testament existed in the time of Moses, and perhaps before.

 

 

[octave]

genetic change is always for the worse; there is always a loss of genetic information in change

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html#.VFxA2PmUfTp

 

Other examples of mutations being beneficial are viruses that jump species (Avian Flu, HIV etc) Flu viruses that mutate (this is why flu vaccines change from year to year). Also consider penicillin resistance. These are beneficial for the organism itself (but not for us).

 

The problem with this debate is that religion requires faith but faith does not necessarily require evidence, that is the nature of faith. I do not have "faith" in the theory of evolution rather I accept that it is supported by the majority of the evidence and by the majority of scientists. The theory is important in the field of medicine and especially in immunology.

 

I think the idea that acceptance of the theory of evolution causes atheism is rather overstated, as I said earlier I realized I was an atheist (or agnostic) before I even knew what those words meant and what evolution meant in fact I can remember the exact moment, ironically it was at sunday school.

 

Despite posting many links to detailed information no one has really challenged the detail. The idea that the theory has been tossed out must surely generate scholarly papers etc but despite asking for links to such papers or articles there has been precious little. I did read GGs link (and other links when provided) https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/

 

I found this quote interesting:

 

"What are we to do when the current consensus among scientists is at odds with the teachings of Scripture? Have we learned the lesson of history? Are we going to reject (or modify our “interpretation” of) the straightforward teachings of Scripture in light of the latest secular scientific claims? Or shall we trust that the Bible will prevail again as it always has in the past?"

 

 

This is why I prefer science to religion, I am excited by the fact the science gets modified as evidence becomes available. The cosmology I learned as a youth has changed with discovery. I would be thrilled by new discoveries of fossils out of sequence or contradictory DNA evidence.

 

 

 

The fact that people believe in a god is fine, I can't believe in a god without sufficient evidence, I guess I could pretend to but I guess that wouldn't count. Perhaps god made me an atheist just to test the patience of believers!

 

 

 

Anyway I think I am done. I have tried debate in a gentle and respectful way so I hope that I have not offended anyone (although this was started by unnecessary "aren't atheists smug and stupid" joke.

 

 

 

Anyway slightly off topic but here is a cool clip about gravity (not controversial ...... hopefully)

 

 

 

[Bikky]

My main problem with religion is that it stood and continues to stand in the way of progress.

 

I often stop to wonder how far we could have progressed if the moral codes of our society weren't determined by the scribblings of a bunch of bronze-age goat herders.

 

There was a time in recent history when medicine was the exclusive domain of the church. To practice medicine was punishable by death. This led to witch hunts where a great number of healers were summarily burnt at the stake in the name of god.

 

Science of any description was seen as heresy. Why? Because the bible says so. Unfortunately, this attitude still persists today.

 

If it weren't for those enlightened and extremely brave souls who believed that observation of reality was more important than the words of an ancient book, we would still believe that the Earth was flat.

 

Thanks to these heretics, today you can comfortably visit your GP if you are sick - no need to repent your sins and be mumbled over by a man in dress waving a crucifix.

 

Of course, science is dynamic by it's very nature. Things change constantly with each new discovery, as they should.

 

What is accepted as reasonable conjecture today will undoubtedly be discarded tomorrow.

 

Today, you can sit in your comfortable house and use electronic media to read an ancient book, or spout your religious views on the internet, travel to distant lands with ease (if god wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings).

 

It's all the devil's work I tell you! We're all off to hell in a hand-basket.

 

Where would we be without heretic science?

 

I'm off to tend to my goats ....

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I'm off to tend to my goats ....

Your kidding?

 

It's not your lazy goat "Billy Idol" is it?

 

 

[turboplanner]

In some countries that did happen, in others it didn't. The Roman Church particularly needed to rewrite history.

 

Closer to you:

 

1427-1440 Codices of the peoples conquered by the Aztecs - by Itzcoatl

 

1652 Maya sacred books - by the Spanish Bishop of Yucatan

 

1585 Bernadino de Sahagun's manuscripts on Atzec Culture - by the Spanish Authorities

 

and all the Atzec history village by village burnt on bonfires by the Spanish - they sure wanted to bury that Aztec heritage

 

Are you aware of the Viracochas that arrived in South America and started preaching good things?

 

 

[Bikky]

We're all better off not knowing these things TP! The pious are compelled to censor, destroy and deny any knowledge that doesn't conform to their own holy scripture. It's all for our own good.

 

Imagine where we would be if we still had access to these writings.

 

Back to my goats ...

 

 

[fly_tornado]

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.

wrong wrong wrong. your "eternal" salvation rests purely on doing god*'s work

 

* or his earthly representative

 

 

[facthunter]

How do I know?. The Bible tells me so. How does one argue with that.? Nev