Atheist knowledge

[octave]

I can't think of anything more dreary than spending eternity with my dead relatives. :(

 

 

[facthunter]

yes "Time should wound all heels". Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Many freedoms such as freedom of religion is a specific attribute of countries that have a Christian heritage; I'm currently in an officially atheist country and no such freedom is found here.

I reckon the issue is you're peeved cause you're in 3rd place behind Muslums and Atheists. If you actually split the practicing Christians into all the splinter groups, if you're not Catholic then your lot wouldn't even make the top 10.

 

China of course has the most Atheists and is a very free, tolerant and liberal country, so your theory about atheists and freedom goes straight out the window.

 

 

[Bikky]

On their way to get married, a young Catholic couple is involved in a fatal car accident. The couple found themselves sitting outside the Pearly Gates waiting for St. Peter to process them into Heaven. While waiting, they began to wonder: Could they possibly get married in Heaven? When St. Peter showed up, they asked him. St. Peter said, "I don't know. This is the first time anyone has asked. Let me go find out,'" and he left. The couple sat and waited, and waited. Two months passed and the couple were still waiting. While waiting, they began to wonder what would happen if it didn't work out; could you get a divorce in heaven? After yet another month, St. Peter finally returned, looking somewhat bedraggled. "Yes," he informed the couple, "You can get married in Heaven." "Great!" said the couple, "But we were just wondering, what if things don't work out? Could we also get a divorce in Heaven?" St. Peter, red-faced with anger, slammed his clipboard onto the ground. "What's wrong?" asked the frightened couple. "OH, COME ON!," St. Peter shouted, "It took me three months to find a priest up here! Do you have any idea how long it'll take me to find a lawyer?"

 

 

[facthunter]

Bit hard but funny. Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . Blaming God for mankind's evil and sin (eg the concentration camps reference) is a favourite tactic of the atheist God-hater

So, GG, explain to me the peerless logic of hating something that doesn't exist. Turbo might even be able to help you with that one without a single reference to the Goat Herders personal development manual.

 

One thing is so terribly clear, logic is an optional extra and a definite hindrance to people who would prefer believing to thinking. Makes you wonder why God gave his chosen few a brain.

 

And of course an omniscient, omnipresent, all powerful Being that loves us all has the power to create and allow Evil people to do all the evil in the world but no power to stop evil. Hang on, what was I thinking? God works in mysterious ways and we should never try to understand anything just accept.

 

And please don't credit us with being anti theism. It's just not for us because we'd rather think than believe. We do resent being lectured to from the Goat Herders manual though.

 

 

[kasper]

Q - Whats the difference between belief in a religious person and an athiest?

 

A - Openness to challenge

 

Religious person - has belief based on a set of religious constructs and evidence to the contrary is immaterial, you just have to believe the closed set of the religious construct - this is generally termed faith

 

Atheist - has belief based on evidence/aquired knowledge - you don't KNOW that evidence contrary to religion is fact/true, you believe it so (there is still belief involved) its just that what you believe is based on what you have acquired as knowledge and it is subject to challenge and modification based on additional information.

 

Both are belief systems just one is a closed system the other open.

 

I believe in the prior existence of now extinct animals on the earth over millenia and I believe in the theory of evolution - I don't know they are correct and true but I do accept them as the best explaination of what exists and on that basis I can discount creation in a few days by a 'god' a few thousand years ago.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can absoultely see that for humans to live in a society and act together for a common benefit there needs to be accepted social rules of interaction - various religions have codified and provided that over the centuries, its just that society does not NEED a religion as such it needs social rules and they are not the same thing.

 

OK - putting hard hat on for the incoming

 

 

[turboplanner]

Better to speak for yourself Don, than to fantasise that you have a following.

 

The fact is that some atheists, while denying the existence of God, and any factual history written in the Bible, loudly express condemnation of God, or disappointment that their wishes were not granted, and quote from the Bible to support their case.

 

You don't have to go any further than this thread to find some of those outing themselves in writing.

 

In cases like Facthunter's I can quite understand there would be bitterness, and don't have a problem with that.

 

Two things have amazed me with this thread:

 

1. We haven't heard outrage from Catholics about the emerging evidence of Saul's invention of Christianity.

 

2. Most atheist hate seems to be about Christian and Essenes belief, with not a mention of the Jewish faith and belief in the same God

 

 

[horsefeathers]

Most athiests dont give a flying spaghetti monster about gods, nor the various early christian sects, and they certainly DONT give a toss about the bible, nor its so-called factual history - And on that point, dont confuse the fact of the existence of a clay tablet or scroll (which can be proved) with the stuff written on said scroll (which cant). Its a old trick, but well past it's use by date.

 

 

[Bikky]

Both are belief systems just one is a closed system the other open.

I see where you're coming from although I think it goes a bit further than that.

 

There's a difference between accepting and believing. As an example, gravity exists whether we believe it or not. It's a fundamental law of nature that we must accept.

 

Mortality is another thing that nature demonstrates clearly for us on a daily basis.

 

If we want more than nature/life offers, then we can fervently believe in something someone told us in the hope that this might be true and that we are above nature. The chosen ones, so to speak. We humans at the top of the pyramid as opposed to we humans being a part of it all.

 

I wonder if the dinosaurs had gods.

 

2. Most atheist hate seems to be about Christian and Essenes belief, with not a mention of the Jewish faith and belief in the same God

You're speaking for who here TP? I don't hate anyone's belief. I might find it silly, amusing or unfounded, but hate is a strong word. Rejection is not hate.

 

What I do feel disdain for, are the things that people do in the name of their chosen god.

 

 

[Marty_d]

2. Most atheist hate seems to be about Christian and Essenes belief, with not a mention of the Jewish faith and belief in the same God

Again with the "hate". I haven't seen any hate from the non-god-bothering side here, perhaps just some frustration.

 

And don't worry, speaking personally, if I'm not going to believe that a supernatural being exists, then it hardly matters which particular creed we're discussing. I haven't heard from any Jews or Muslims on this forum, only christians (and whatever team you bat for), if we get some believers of other stripes on here I'm quite happy to question them on how their beliefs stack up to established reality.

 

For example: To the Pastafarians out there;

 

- From which animal does the meat come from in the meatballs of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and how could that animal exist before the FSM?

 

- Given that both spaghetti and meatballs are manufactured products, who manufactured the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

- Please explain the aerodynamics behind the FSM, as in popular illustrations it does not seem to possess wings, rotors or any method of propulsion.

 

 

[kasper]

snipped ...There's a difference between accepting and believing. As an example, gravity exists whether we believe it or not. It's a fundamental law of nature that we must accept.

 

Mortality is another thing that nature demonstrates clearly for us on a daily basis.

 

...

From my perspective you are on a slippery slope against those of a religious belief stating gravity exists regardless of belief as that statement is equally valid that god exists regardless of belief. From my perspective I see the results of what we call gravity. Its explained to me through other experiments and theories as being the result of attraction between everything with mass ... and I can understand that explanations, I accept that they did the experiments and it all fits as a coherant whole so I believe in the theory of gravity as being responsible for what I see as the result of gravity ... because its a better explanation than billions of little invisible fairies buzzing around moving things about that I see as the actions of gravity. So I have to accept as fundamental the operative results in teh world of what we term gravity, I chose to believe that it is a result of eletromagnetic attractions at the atomic level aggrogating to the level of 'things' i see.

 

Morality on the other hand is not a physically measurable thing, it is an individuals reaction to external acts that are governed by their indivdual set of acceptable behaviours.

 

The fundamental difference I see between the two areas you linked so effortlessly is that:

 

- gravity and physically measureable/observable things are universal - they are the same regardless of the persons beliefs or rule sets

 

- morality is a not universal it is subjective - the actions/behaviours are universally observable but the morality of it is determined by the rules of the indivudal observer

 

So I have to disagree entirely with your statement that morality is demonstrated clearly to us by nature - completely incompatible concepts being universal (nature) and subjective (morality).

 

Cheers, end of coffee break

 

 

[Marty_d]

Kasper, well written, but I think Bikky was talking about "mortality" not "morality".

 

What a difference a T makes!

 

(or coffee).

 

 

[kasper]

Goodness me yes, now where did I put that emoticon of a large man blushing ....

 

 

[horsefeathers]

Again with the "hate". For example: To the Pastafarians out there;

 

- From which animal does the meat come from in the meatballs of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and how could that animal exist before the FSM?

 

- Given that both spaghetti and meatballs are manufactured products, who manufactured the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

- Please explain the aerodynamics behind the FSM, as in popular illustrations it does not seem to possess wings, rotors or any method of propulsion.

Oh goodness Marty_d - i... just dont know how to overcome such...... unbeliveableness (if there is such a word)

 

See post #1230, and in the words of the great editor VI :

 

s/Bikky/Marty_d/g

 

 

[Marty_d]

Oh goodness Marty_d - i... just dont know how to overcome such...... unbeliveableness (if there is such a word)See post #1230, and in the words of the great editor VI :

 

s/Bikky/Marty_d/g

Yep. I steadfastly refuse to wear pirate costume, and as for being "touched by a noodle"... I'm afraid I don't swing that way.

 

Mind you, your god is at least tasty, especially with parmesan and a glass of red.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

 

In response to the above video. Sorry but this video is just factually wrong about almost everything especially bone, ribs and regeneration. Its a plucking of a few half truths, add them to half truths about unrelated things and claim they are the whole answer to how a third unrelated event occurred.

 

The briefest of medical lessons on bone growth and usage of donor bone.

 

A Bone (simplified) consists of 4 main parts -

 

An outer fibrous sheath (Periosteum)

 

An inner mineralized mass (Calcium in a scaffold structure)

 

Bone making cells (Osteoblasts) that make bone mineral)

 

Bone removing cells (Osteoclasts) that remove bone mineral)

 

Ribs are indistinguishable from any other bone, microscopically, metabolically, regrowth and healing wise, (except their overall shape) they have ALL the same four components.

 

All bones (not just ribs) will regrow - that's how bones mend after a break.

 

In surgery (where I am sitting as I write this right now) we use all sorts of bone from all sorts of donor sites to help repair defects. We almost rarely use ribs, but occasionally do. We have easier places to get it- usually from the bone of the front of the pelvis, or just times get some from nearby or in the area of the surgery itself. Nibble it up into small bits and pack it back into the area of the surgery. Taking from a rib cage has all sorts of risks and problems (the heart and lungs etc can get interferred with in this sort of donor site surgery). Using chips of nibbled up bone gives both osteoblasts to grow bone mineral and provides mineral scaffolding.

 

When ribs are removed for donor if you chop out a WHOLE RIB, IT DOES NOT GROW BACK. End of story!

 

The muscles scar together and you can live without a rib - but its not ideal but usually OK. You may get a nubbin of regrowth from the stump.

 

If however when taking the rib, we split open the periosteum, lift the segment of bone out and close the periosteal sleeve back up - THEN the osteoblasts that are left on the inside of the sleeve will regrow bone. Generally it has normal shape, sometimes its a bit lumpy and out of shape. But every bone in the body will do this - nothing special about ribs.

 

Salamanders and starfish can regrow bits - but only the bits that were lost and only simple parts. Tails and arms. They can't grow a whole animal, a new head or a new set of lungs.

 

In general no higher animals of any sort to regrow anything except specific parts of specific organs. Bone repair, a few replacement cells in some specific organs.

 

A piece of bone likewise can not grow into a whole person or even a different organ.

 

So this video is a typical scenario of a nut-case who takes a minor true point and extraoplates it wildly to make untrue statements and then uses the "proof" of the untrue statements to attempt to "prove" some even more absurd theorum. The ancient Greeks called this "Functio ad absurdum" (if I recall the source correctly) and its been around for several thousand years before Christians got to have a go at it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Again with the "hate". I haven't seen any hate from the non-god-bothering side here, perhaps just some frustration.

I didn't say "Most atheists hate", I said "Most atheist hate"....like most atheist pleasure, most atheist anger, most atheist belief etc

 

 

[horsefeathers]

I didn't say "Most atheists hate", I said "Most atheist hate"....like most atheist pleasure, most atheist anger, most atheist belief etc

This sounds like our Dear Leader, Kim Il Abbott, explaining that a broken promise about cutting budgets is actually an efficiency dividend.

 

 

[kasper]

I didn't say "Most atheists hate", I said "Most atheist hate"....like most atheist pleasure, most atheist anger, most atheist belief etc

Ah, it's your external assessment of the actions/words of the athiest you were on about - your subjective view of another - rather than the subjective intent of the athiest themself.

 

Glad I go that clarified - I thought I missed soemthing at athiest induction where I had to hate to be a proper athiest because there I was going along just discounting a heap of religious beliefs as unacceptable and untrue.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I didn't say "Most atheists hate", I said "Most atheist hate"....like most atheist pleasure, most atheist anger, most atheist belief etc

Fair enough, so you're talking more widely than just this forum. If you're saying that out in the wide world, atheists spend more time pointing out the problems with christianity more than the others, that could be due to a couple of reasons:

 

1. More English-speakers are familiar with the christian bible rather than the torah/koran etc;

 

2. Unless you're in the deep south of the US, speaking out against christianity doesn't get you killed.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Kasper, well written, but I think Bikky was talking about "mortality" not "morality". . . . .

But even still, there is a fair argument that morality is built into us as a part of evolution. Successful social groups observe patterns of behaviour which are morality in practice as opposed to a theory of morality. Even the most abhorrently violent social groups from the Romans to the Vikings to Genghis Khan to the Mafia to the CFMEU or the US Marines have a pattern of behaviour within the group that would constitute a form of morality.

 

Without morality groups are susceptible to anarchy and disunity and extinction.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't see how one could differentiate about hate, anger, pleasure, BELIEF from a non theist or a theist as being something so different or exclusive as to make a substantial case on this one, with the exception of Belief as it specifically relates to the existence of a Deity, as the ESSENTIAL part of the definition of atheist.Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Gnarly, will we see a retraction from you of that absurd video and an admission that the surgeon knows what he's talking about? Or, let me guess, you will continue to accept as gospel everyone of those under-educated over-zealous people tell you? I won't hold my breath.

 

 

[facthunter]

Don whether a tribe can get away with killing a lot of it's own gratuitously would depend on the harshness of their environment, and the availability of essentials The more complex and severe, the more they must cooperate or perish. Nev