Atheist knowledge

[Old Koreelah]

...All religions think they have the right one and consequently all the others are not correct. Therefore to most thousands of religions don't make the grade....

Reminds me of this gem: it's old, but it's gold.

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/hell-a-scientific-explanation.125832/

 

 

[rgmwa]

Fortunately, most children seem grow up relatively unscathed whatever their parent's religious beliefs may be, and eventually make up their own minds about what to believe, or not, as is often the case. Personally I find it difficult to understand what it is about any religion that convinces people to place their faith in it. The problems really start when the more zealous amongst them then go and try to convert others to their beliefs, and the whole thing gets out of hand. It has always seemed to me that some poor native happily worshipping the sun because he's worked out that it makes his crops grow and he'd like to see it come up again tomorrow, has a far more rational reason to believe in his sun god than the proseltysing missionary who comes along one day waving a bible in his face and telling him he's been wrong all his life.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[rgmwa]

Trust in the lord ....

Unfortunately for me perhaps, that's the bit I have trouble with.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Fellow aviation enthusiasts,

 

I'd like to suggest that we shut down this discussion about now. Personally, I love a discussion like this and find others views fascinating. I especially enjoy philosophical discussions if red wine is involved, and perhaps an open fire in winter. Sadly all it does is to raise the issues that divide us when we are all here to share the thing that unites us - aviation.

 

Atheists like to use reason, logic, science even and resort to evidence to explain why they are happy to love a life without reference to any of the 1,400+ gods. But it is, ironically, a bit like "preaching to the converted" but nobody is ever converted back to religion or gives up their faith for atheism - not that anyone was attempting that in putting forward personal views.

 

All of which is wasted on a person who is prepared to accept a totally illogical proposition as a fact without any evidence offered or sought.

 

If I were to ask the question, which is a better fighter - Spitfire or ME109? We would have a spirited discussion but not fall out over it or lower our value for people who disagree with us. Arguing religion (or political economics) changes nothing other than possibly reducing level of regard for opponents.

 

This thread started with a great joke and perhaps we can finish with a p!ssweak one?

 

By way of explaining the term, can you give an example of an agnostic dyslectic insomniac?

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

A person who lays awake at night, wondering if there really is a Dog . . .

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Actually Dafydd, meeting places for atheists have been opened in recent times. It seems the human need for communal "worship" is satisfied by gathering and singing songs about the best in human nature.

Mediocrity is always amongst us. And those who are still in the process of breaking out of their childhood trauma may need some support. But I question a human need for communal "worship"; one of the by-products of religion is that it seeks to prevent its followers from ever growing up. If you truly accept responsibility for your own actions, you don't need to worship anyone or anything.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Fellow aviation enthusiasts,

I'd like to suggest that we shut down this discussion about now. Personally, I love a discussion like this and find others views fascinating. I especially enjoy philosophical discussions if red wine is involved, and perhaps an open fire in winter. Sadly all it does is to raise the issues that divide us when we are all here to share the thing that unites us - aviation.

 

Atheists like to use reason, logic, science even and resort to evidence to explain why they are happy to love a life without reference to any of the 1,400+ gods. But it is, ironically, a bit like "preaching to the converted" but nobody is ever converted back to religion or gives up their faith for atheism - not that anyone was attempting that in putting forward personal views.

 

All of which is wasted on a person who is prepared to accept a totally illogical proposition as a fact without any evidence offered or sought.

 

If I were to ask the question, which is a better fighter - Spitfire or ME109? We would have a spirited discussion but not fall out over it or lower our value for people who disagree with us. Arguing religion (or political economics) changes nothing other than possibly reducing level of regard for opponents.

 

This thread started with a great joke and perhaps we can finish with a p!ssweak one?

 

By way of explaining the term, can you give an example of an agnostic dyslectic insomniac?

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

A person who lays awake at night, wondering if there really is a Dog . . .

Yes, Don - that's in post #21 on this thread . . . and it about sums it up, I think.

 

 

[nomadpete]

OK, both sides have aired their views. There is probably nothing positive to be gained by going over old ground endlessly.

 

I echo Don's last remark - lets get back to discussing aviation and avoid any downward spiral in this subject. Time to close the thread please moderator?

 

Unless, of course someone can provide some red wine and fire.........

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Cuts out all the men that think they know it all ( spiritly speaking)

That's assuming there is actually anything to know. From an atheist's viewpoint, there isn't.

 

I agree, close the thread.

 

 

[AVOCET]

Unfortunately for me perhaps, that's the bit I have trouble with.rgmwa

I have the same problem

 

 

[facthunter]

I didn't start it and never will. Mostly I sit and say nothing as I agree this is a hard site to run politics or religion (Or it seems the absence of it). In many countries there are groups trying to help people who wish to exit their faiths, They are not working for the devil but trying to get people through a stressful situation. Nev

 

 

[AVOCET]

OK, both sides have aired their views. There is probably nothing positive to be gained by going over old ground endlessly.

I echo Don's last remark - lets get back to discussing aviation and avoid any downward spiral in this subject. Time to close the thread please moderator?

 

Unless, of course someone can provide some red wine and fire.........

Druidvale ( no pun , honestly rattled me on my boots when i found out the name , ) has a great story to tell of the "Forresters " who made Druidvale a place of much activity in the 1870's , with a huge blacksmithing buisines, bugy making ect ,

 

Ihave unearthed a number of artifacts and parifinalia , in the ruins after the fire , theres eaven 12 large stones scatered in the padock .

 

Since then its been a hive of activity with the latest infer structure made on site from the rail lines from the Old Ghann that was ripped up in the 70's

 

The latest incarnation is me it seems ,

 

As the locals continualy remind me ,

 

"The man who build aeroplanes ".

 

Anyway , red wine and an open fire is available any time , mix that with good company and a stary sky , and aircraft of corse .

 

Mike

 

 

[turboplanner]

When people start to ask for a thread to be closed, you know they are beaten.

 

For those who want to stop and go away to talk about Aviation, is there a hand on your shoulder stopping you?

 

In amongst the posts which are less than informative is some world shaking information.

 

I've been studying ancient civilizations and it's interesting that some stories in the Bible can not only be corroborated by hard evidence, but can be pinned down to a year, months and tume of day. This is due to the massive amount of evidence being produced and stored thanks to the digital age.

 

On the other hand, many bible stories have been translated through several languages and are currently nonsensical due to the chinese whispers effect.

 

If you are prepared to read, some very interesting information is falling out, some pro-religion, some against.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I think this thread has been a learning experience for all of us.

 

[ATTACH]47462._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[turboplanner]

Another commercial from the Devil?

 

 

[facthunter]

A steroids and tatt's advert. IF only I looked like that everything would fall into place. ( Or I could bash the shit out of everyone laughing at me). Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

Spitfire. Sh*ts all over the BF109 in speed, climb and maneouverability for most of the envelope. (Disclaimer: I LOVE Spitfires.)

 

 

[facthunter]

There's lots of versions of Spitfires... The engine of the Bf 109 has better high altitude performance as the Jerry's were way ahead with supercharging going right back to the early 30's Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I have the complete technical history of the Spitfire. It's a very large book and extremely interesting, and the simple truth is that there is no simple truth as to which was the "better" aircraft; they each had different strengths and weaknesses, and the advantage was more in how they were used. The advantage depended on the combat altitude, and shifted from model to model, and the spitfire went up to Mk 24 (Seafire to Mk 47); the Me 109 went from 109A to 109G, but there were field modification kits that added many minor variations within that series, plus add-ons such as GM-1, so broad-brush comparisons are really meaningless.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

[Marty_d]

Dafydd and Nev you are completely correct. I should have said "In general across most areas of the envelope, concurrent versions of the 109 and Spitfire were fairly similar matched, although I believe that the Spit usually had the edge".

 

But all that aside, I challenge anyone to argue against the fact that the Spitfire is far, far more beautiful than the 109.

 

 

[facthunter]

Especially the earlier versions. They cost too much to produce and repair too. But......Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Yes, you have only to watch the crowd at an airshow when a Spitfire turns up to see that. Every other aeroplane on the field looks like a heap of dog meat, all of a sudden. But the ME 109 was far, far more practical to produce and maintain than the Spitfire. It almost caused a riot in the corridors of power in 1939 or so, when it came to light that changing an engine on a 109 took 12 minutes.

 

 

[rgmwa]

The FW190 was designed for easy maintenance too, and both the ME109 and FW190 usually had great looking colour schemes. Pierre Clostermann specifically mentions in his book how spectacular they looked in the air.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[RKW]

Adolf Galand once got into a spot of bother when he commented "I should like an outfit of spitfires for my squadron". He obviously had a high regard for spits. Goring was not amused.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Adolf Galand once got into a spot of bother when he commented "I should like an outfit of spitfires for my squadron". He obviously had a high regard for spits. Goring was not amused.

Well I reckon Australia should buy a few Sukhoi SU-27's instead of that moneysink F-35, but that ain't going to happen either.