Atheist knowledge

[rgmwa]

By the same token, rgmwa, you can continue to believe that everthing came into being through the processes of Darwinism/evolution without any designer. It all comes down to one thing: what does one believe -what is ultimately more plausible.

Quite right 80kts. It does ultimately come down to what you believe is more plausible, and we might well all be wrong. The truth may be stranger than we can imagine, but in the meantime all we have are various hotly debated theories and beliefs.

 

In my opinion, the main reason why people do not wish to acknowledge that God created everything is simple. If God designed everything, we must be accountable to him in some way.

You're assuming that God exists, of course. I don't know whether she does or not, and that's the problem (for me).

 

Our consciences tell us that somewhere in our life we have said something nasty, taken something we shouldn't have, hurt someone unjustly, etc, ...we may have to face the music for this. This is so abhorrent that people cling to the illogical explanation of Darwin (no designer) rather than believing what is pretty obvious, that there must be a divine designer, God.

Yes, my conscience tells me when I've done something wrong and if I have to face the music eventually, then so be it. I don't find taking responsiblity for myself in the least abhorrent, and certainly no reason to cling to Darwin's theory. However, it's also not at all obvious to me that there must inevitably be a divine designer to explain everything. To me that's just clutching at another kind of straw, albeit one that offers a lot of psychological comfort in terms of who we are, why we're here and where we're going. That's very reassuring, but of course it might also be quite delusional. However, if it transpires that there really is a God I'm sure she will give me credit for honesty in my ignorance and for being basically a good bloke who's making his way through life as best he can.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Marty_d]

By the same token, rgmwa, you can continue to believe that everthing came into being through theh processes of Darwinism/evolution without any designer. It all comes down to one thing: what does one believe -what is ultimately more plausible.

In my opinion, the main reason why people do not wish to acknowledge that God created everything is simple. If God designed everything, we must be accountable to him in some way. Our consciences tell us that somewhere in our life we have said something nasty, taken something we shouldn't have, hurt someone unjustly, etc, ...we may have to face the music for this. This is so abhorrent that people cling to the illogical explanation of Darwin (no designer) rather than believing what is pretty obvious, that there must be a divine designer, God.

Actually, that makes no sense at all. Even if everything was created (and jeez, thanks for AIDS, Hepatitis, cancer in all its forms, tuberculosis, Ebola, genetic diseases, childhood diseases - why give infants congenital diseases, suffering, and terminal illnesses, by the way?), it doesn't follow that this creator would have any interest in all the petty little things humans do to each other when they've had a bad day.

 

The whole problem is that we have some modicum of intelligence, and that makes us the only animal on earth that knows from a very young age that we are going to die. For some reason our ego has trouble accepting that we will not exist any longer. (I don't know why... I had no existence before I was conceived, why should I have an existence after I'm dead?) Hence, this notion of life after death, which when you think about it logically, doesn't make a whole of sense.

 

Then we have an innate sense of justice (most of us) which can't stand the thought that truly bad people are not punished sufficiently for the wrong they do. So we make up Hell, and tell ourselves that they're going to burn forever for their crimes after they're dead.

 

And what is Heaven? All the christian writings seem pretty vague on that one. Something about "perfect, incorruptible bodies" and "many mansions", but what do you do with them? Apparently all earthly desires no longer exist, so it's not as if you can spend eternity using your new perfect body for anything fun. From what I can make out, it's spending forever praising god and perhaps singing a bit. Don't know about you but that's not my idea of how to spend a fun hour, let alone eternity.

 

Can anyone really believe that horses will one day grow feathers?

Pegasus?

 

I can't see why they would, but dinosaurs did, so ask me again in a few million years.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Mike, I was very religious once. I studied Christian Doctrine extensively and was pretty good at it. I enjoyed being religious. It can be very uplifting and completes everything. All questions are answered and all the dots are connected. Anything that seems at odds with God's great goodness (like Ebola and bugs that eat eyeballs in the living and the suffering of children with terrible cancers) is just explained away as "God works in mysterious ways" or its the work of the Devil.

Don the God of the Bible (which BTW is NOT Allah of the Koran who is an exact opposite character) has no desire for us to be religious (the term very rarely used in scripture) - it's all about God having a relationship with us, a close father - child relationship*. There are many people who call themselves Christians yet have never been born anew, never received the Holy Spirit; John 3v3 "Jesus answered and said to him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God." You and I can study the Bible day and night but until we put it into action it remains an academic interest and we are not saved. Heb 11v6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him. For he that draws near to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them who seek him out."

 

God will not hear a sinner (John 9v31) but the moment we repent (acknowledge our sin or wrongdoing) he does: John 1v12 "but as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name." This message of salvation by faith is so simple it can be understood by anyone.

 

Regarding why does God allow suffering there are many articles about this if you would care to look into it, perhaps your teachers may have brushed it aside as they didn't really know. I understand it relates to what took place between God and Satan back near the beginning of creation, rather than immediately crush him time was given to demonstrate to all the goodness and justice of God vs the destruction and evil Satan has brought into the world. This is potentially a lengthy discussion I don't have time to get into here however I will make one comment about the continent of Africa which is where many of these significant diseases seem to be originating. God has blessed Africa with the greatest natural resources of all the continents on earth. It is fabulously wealthy and the lifestyle of people living there should exceed that of the USA, Europe and other wealthy western or middle eastern countries. Yet due to sin and corruption a large percentage of Africans are dirt poor and suffering. I don't see this as God's fault at all. Many, many people from the west have and are helping them yet due largely to corruption, violence and apathy only a little improvement has been seen. I've noticed some people rush to blame God when some bad thing happens yet not once have they thanked him for the many good things that also happen daily.

 

Specifically on disease you will often hear the media claim that bacteria is evolving so rapidly that antibiotics are becoming useless. But instead what is happening is that there are many related strains of bacteria and antibiotics tend to kill only certain types leaving others to flourish, it has nothing to do with them evolving. Doctors recently examined a WW1 corpse of a solider who died of dysentery and found it had an antibiotic resistant bacteria - many years before antibiotics were being used.

 

* In the beginning the church was a fellowship of men and women centering on the living Christ. Then the church moved to Greece where it became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome where it became an institution. Next, it moved to Europe , where it became a culture. And, finally, it moved to America where it became an enterprise.--Richard Halverson, former chaplain of the United States Senate

 

[fly_tornado]

But instead what is happening is that there are many related strains of bacteria and antibiotics tend to kill only certain types leaving others to flourish, it has nothing to do with them evolving. Doctors recently examined a WW1 corpse of a solider who died of dysentery and found it had an antibiotic resistant bacteria - many years before antibiotics were being used.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Definition from the New Collins Dictionery - Atheist: "one who denies the existence of God"

And an excellent example of a book written from the viewpoint of a Theist.

 

By this definition, Atheists are branded as "deniers" a truly pejorative term.

 

Look how effectively that pejorative "denier" is used against climate change skeptics.

 

The term "Atheist" is defined by Collins as somebody who is anti something when the true meaning of the pefix "A" is "without reference to"not "anti".

 

Perhaps a man like Bernie Madoff (massive ponzi scheme) might be described Amoral. He seems to act without reference to most moral standards. A paedophile priest might be a very good person but with one awful, fatal flaw. He understands and accepts generally accepted moral standards (believes in the God of Abraham) but chooses to act contrary to one particular moral standard and could be described as being IMmoral. Chances are neither the immoral nor the amoral person deny the existence of morals. The Amoral person just thinks that they don't apply to him whereas the immoral person knows that morals are relevant but acts contrary to them.

 

The more reputable Oxford English Dictionary defines Atheist in terms of:

 

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"

 

While closer to the usual meaning of the prefix "A" it still suffers from the Christian/Muslim viewpoint of equating Atheists with infidels. There is a technical difference between a disbeliever and and a person for whom the concept has no relevance. Even the Oxford tries to define an atheist as "lacking änd therefore in some way deficient.

 

Atheists are not obliged solely by their atheism to convert others to atheism. On the other hand Theists, particularly Christians and Muslims are required by their particular theism to convert others to their belief system. Perhaps that is why they think atheists want to convert everyone to atheism?

 

Atheists crave a truly secular government because it allows them to live free from religious dogma. Theists need to appreciate that the only societies who truly allow freedom of choice of religion are truly secular states. Theocracies like England, Iran and the Vatican do not have an even hand regarding choice of religion. The USA does have such a system in theory but it is corrupted by fundamentalist Christians who would like Muslims to swear on a Christian Bible (but do not get their way on that any more). However, Theists still get to have "One nation under God" engraved all over the place.

 

The logic is we don't deny a god or gods because their is no God to deny. We also don't deny the existence of the tooth fairy or Santa Clause or (insert your own favourite myth) we just know they are not real.

 

We don't go around trying to convince people who believe in the tooth fairy or other imaginary friends to give up their beliefs. Let's try to stick with logical argument and leave the illogical denigration to others.

 

. . . I don't have a problem if an atheist says he doesn't believe in God, but none of them in this thread have just left it at that.

When people quote the literal word of their unreliable Bible at you to prove they are right and you are wrong then it is hard to resist showing them the fallacy in their argument. And when they attempt to use totally discredited creationist "science" to disprove the generally accepted Theory of Evolution it is again very hard to leave that nonsense stand unquestioned.

 

You've made constant reference to them, taking advantage of every irrelevancy in the book;

The Theists claim that the Bible is the inspired word of their God and that every word can be read literally (according to their idea of literally). If they claim the massacres at Jericho happened for the reasons it says in the Bible and that that was a good thing then they have to account for how that can be a good thing.

 

. . . most of the rest of us understand for example that the Roman gods had no substance, and so eventually did the Romans.

OMG! How can you say that? The Roman Empire lasted along with their Gods for most of 6 centuries. The Romans acted like they believed in their Gods and accepted that their Emperors were Gods in the same way that the Egyptians accepted that their Pharohs were Gods.

 

. . . Always the spike at the end.

True and an admitted defect in my character where I get frustrated by reading the name nonsense over and over . . . oops, there I go again.

 

You are free to be comfortable in your Godless state, but you imply that I am not rational, and that's typical of the atheist that doesn't know what he doesn't know.

I'm afraid you are mixing concepts of "rational" and "sensible".

 

Faith relates to belief and not to reason.

 

Rational relates to reason and not to accepting without evidence or logic.

 

Religion is not necessarily anti-rational more "Arational" - see how the "A" works?

 

That sound very much to me like a bad experience with Catholics, . .

On the contrary, apart from a little hypocrisy here and there and the mindless repetition of prayers until they had no meaning whatsoever, I had a lovely time growing up in the Catholic system. To be fair, I only ever heard of one peadophile in the clergy although as it turned out the Hunter Valley was a hotbed of the bastards.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Its amazing how the presence of a bacteria that by coincidence happens to be antibiotic resistant 100 years ago can only mean thing, that Jesus of Nazarus is the Christ.

 

Is that a miracle? That bacteria have the ability to be antibiotic resistant. Or is it just evolution.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . Specifically on disease you will often hear the media claim that bacteria is evolving so rapidly that antibiotics are becoming useless. But instead what is happening is that there are many related strains of bacteria and antibiotics tend to kill only certain types leaving others to flourish, it has nothing to do with them evolving. Doctors recently examined a WW1 corpse of a solider who died of dysentery and found it had an antibiotic resistant bacteria - many years before antibiotics were being used. . . .

Gnarly, I have no problem with you writing down your interpretation of the scriptures for my benefit. You clearly have read widely and/or listened well to what people of your particular evangelistic form of Christianity have written or said. You have a level of expertise in this. And, after all, in the end it is your personal view and nobody here can tell you you are right or wrong.

 

However, please do us all a favour and stop pontificating on something about which you really have not authority. All you seem to be able to do is to regurgitate what some totally discredited creationist "scientists" have to say on the matter. I seriously doubt you have even a bachelor's degree in geology, astronomy, particle physics or molecular biology or perhaps any of the sciences. Until you at least have achieved some education in the real world, you have no authority to write or speak on these matters. Until you take your creationist ideas to a recognised university and have them challenged by people who have done the research they are not science but religious doctrine. Being Religious Doctrine nobody can say you are wrong - it is your religious belief. But let's not try to dress it up as real science.

 

I will happily argue the logic of theist concepts but you won't catch me arguing against the real scientists whose experiments and peer reviewed papers have established their authority and credibility. On matters of Evolution, you can have no credibility until you can produce papers that are independently peer reviewed and accepted by real scientists.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

It looks to me as if some atheists see the BIBLE virtually as God. I wouldn't look at it from on year to next. To me in some cases it's a history book, in others a manual on how to behave, and in others just advertising.

Sounds like a sensible way to go about life.

 

But the problem comes that vast numbers of Christians, particularly the born again evangelists require the Bible to be read literally. And then if you want to depart from the literal interpretation, as the Catholic Church is comfortable with doing, then how do you decide which bits are just parables and which bits remain literal. The Catholic Church gets around this with the neat trick of the Pope conferring infallibility on himself. Other denominations have been slow to catch on to this solution.

 

All that we know about God comes from the Bible and from an oral tradition. Unfortunately both are without any authority. You say that some Bible stories can be confirmed from other sources. It may well be that the battle of Jericho actually happened and the walls fell down and that they fell down because of the Arch (Ark) of the Covenant. However, could those records ever give both sides of the story that of the victors and the victims? Could you ever get any more understanding than a battle actually happened and the jewish ancestors were the victors? I doubt it.

 

 

[rgmwa]

God will not hear a sinner (John 9v31) but the moment we repent (acknowledge our sin or wrongdoing) he does: John 1v12 "but as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name." This message of salvation by faith is so simple it can be understood by anyone.

I thought repent meant being sorry, not just acknowledging sin or wrongdoing. Sorry Gnu, but I just find the whole notion of `we are all sinners, repent and be saved, believe and earn the right to be children of God, etc', quite bizarre. To me it suggests a view of the world permeated by fear and uncertainty, and ruled by a god who is not altogether benevolent. Salvation can be yours, but only if you believe you need to be saved and seek forgiveness. I'm intrigued by the way you see things, but it's just not a mindset that I can identify with easily. My failing perhaps.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[DonRamsay]

The problem for you Octave is that you are arguing about a theory that was never proved . . .

This is just a silly statement. The theory of evolution is a theory. It is not Newton's 4th law of motion. Einstein's theories are still referred to as theories. They are the most sensible explanation of how things are and work. Boyle's Law is not a theory is an immutable law of physics. Gravity, for God's sake, is a Theory! Try ignoring that one next time you get the inclination to aviate.

 

Knocking evolution because it is just a scientific theory is puerile. It is beneath contempt. Is it fully understood? No more than the theory of Gravity is fully understood.

 

How many times does it have to be stated? Even in the USA, Creationism can not be taught in schools as Science because it is merely a religious doctrine. No credible, real world University, would teach creationism instead of evolution. Evolution as a theory may be incomplete but it is as good as it is at the moment.

 

When Turbo and I were in high school an atom was composed of (only) neutrons, protons and electrons. Were they wrong? Was it the best explanation of what had been observed at the time? Is science always open to new evidence and revised theories? Will creationists ever open their minds to anything but a book with no provenance?

 

 

[bexrbetter]

One night a burglar is trying to break into a house. He's sneaking across the lawn when he hears a voice - "God is watching you!" He jumps, turns around, but he doesn't see anything. So he starts creeping across the lawn again. "God is watching you!" He hears it again.

 

So now the burglar is really looking around, and he sees a parrot in a cage by the side of the house. He says to the parrot, "Did you say that?" The parrot answers "Yes I did." So the burglar asks, "What's your name?" The parrot says "Clarence." The burglar says "What kind of idiot would name his parrot Clarence?"

 

The parrot says, "The same idiot that named his Rottweiler 'God' "

 

 

[bexrbetter]

One day, a Catholic, a Protestant and a Jehovah's Witness wound up together at the Pearly Gates. St. Peter informed them that in order to get into Heaven, they would each have to answer one question. St. Peter addressed the Catholic and asked, "What was the name of the ship that crashed into an iceberg that they just made a movie? The Catholic answered quickly, "That would be the Titanic." St. Peter let him through the gate. St. Peter turned to the Protestant and decided to make the question a little harder, "How many people died on the ship?" Fortunately for him, the Protestant had just seen the movie recently and answered, "About 1,500." "That's right! You may enter." said St. Peter who then turned to the Jehovah's Witness, "Name them....."

 

 

[turboplanner]

And an excellent example of a book written from the viewpoint of a Theist.By this definition, Atheists are branded as "deniers" a truly pejorative term.

 

The more reputable Oxford English Dictionary defines Atheist in terms of:

 

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"

It started out well, but after reading the highly entertaining sermons below it and in the following posts, the words "hoist with his own petard" came to my mind.

 

The Collins New English Dictionary lives.

 

If you want to use another dictionary (complete with it's 'up with the Jones's adjective), fine, then live it, be an atheist, don't believe, don't let that upset you, just sit in the sun and stop preaching fiery sermons while misunderstanding the Bible you don't believe in.

 

 

[turboplanner]

..... He understands and accepts generally accepted moral standards (believes in the God of Abraham) ......

Who's this God of Abraham you keep crapping on about?

 

So far in the discussion we seem to have become bogged at about 2,000 years back, and Abraham was around a little before that, but we haven't had a chance to get into the Egyptuans relationship with God and they have a written history of 24,925 years - somewhat longer than when Abraham was standing around in a leather jacket at the local bar drinking the local wines.

 

There is a bigger picture

 

 

[turboplanner]

And now here's some local news: http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/archeo/aborigines/flood.htm

 

 

[eightyknots]

And now here's some local news: http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/archeo/aborigines/flood.htm

The concept of the Great Flood has come up in nearly all civilisations in some way or other. Because many of them have been passed from generation to generation verbally some details have been added or lost.

 

However the theme of a great flood is still there. This is likely to equate to the so-called Noah's flood recorded in the bible. I am sure that explains why there are shells imbedded in the highest reaches of Mount Everest.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Could you ever get any more understanding than a battle actually happened and the jewish ancestors were the victors? I doubt it.

To the victor, the spoils and the right to write the history!(as the Americans do so well) Along with that the right to burn the books of the history of the victim. How much science have we had to relearn throughout human history because of this flawed approach? So much Mayan and Vedic science was truely inspired and only dribs and drabs of it survive to see the light of day and go on benefiting humanity.

 

 

[rankamateur]

St. Peter who then turned to the Jehovah's Witness, "Name them....."

But don't worry he will be back next month!

 

 

[rankamateur]

The concept of the Great Flood has come up in nearly all civilisations in some way or other. Because many of them have been passed from generation to generation verbally some details have been added or lost.

However the theme of a great flood is still there. This is likely to equate to the so-called Noah's flood recorded in the bible. I am sure that explains why there are shells imbedded in the highest reaches of Mount Everest.

That may have something to do with the long recognised method of letting the locals keep something of what they had believed so they will more easily accept what they are being converted too. It is less untidy that way, instead of a procession of deceased ancestors remains, south americans now process with catholic religious idols. Maybe the great flood was just an allowed concession in the same way, the great flood of Uru passed down in verbal history to all the peoples of the world as they populated the planet.

 

 

[octave]

Noah's flood as high as Everest 29000 ft, did they carry oxygen? hypoxia?

[rgmwa]

However the theme of a great flood is still there. This is likely to equate to the so-called Noah's flood recorded in the bible. I am sure that explains why there are shells imbedded in the highest reaches of Mount Everest.

There is not enough water, water vapour and ice on the planet to raise the world's water level to the top of Mt Everest. There is also the small problem of producing rain from clouds that would have to be up around 30,000' to clear the crest. On the other hand, if what is now Mt Everest was at one time not a mountain at all, but part of the sea floor that was later pushed up by plate tectonics, that might explain the shells without the need for Noah's flood.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Noah's flood as high as Everest 29000 ft, did they carry oxygen? hypoxia?

You believe the atmosphere was compressed into the waters?

 

 

[octave]

You believe the atmosphere was compressed into the waters?

Yes I am guilty of a slip of logic here, of course the air pressure would be greater. Therefore I am happy to take on new information and modify my statement.

 

However a literal interpretation of Noah's ark (I don't know where you stand on this) is flawed on so many fronts.

 

 

[rgmwa]

Yes I am guilty of a slip of logic here, of course the air pressure would be greater.

Would it? The water would displace the atmosphere which would then have to `spread out' due to the increased circumference of the earth, consequently reducing in height to maintain the same volume, resulting in reduced density and pressure at the water surface.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Jesus must be the Christ...