Atheist knowledge

[kasper]

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.

I accept what you say on the basis that in your terms morality equates to social rules.

 

I'd challenge that morality was the result of evolution and offer as a challenge to that the observation that morality between seperate groups of humans is diverse and the 'cross breeding' of individuals from dsitinctly different morality groups does not result in a mixed morality as a rule and further the abscence of the parents from raising indivuduals or their replacement with another as occurs in adoption fairly strongly suggests that morality in not inherant in the individual as a result of genetics but is an applied/acquired manner of operating as a member of the society in which they live.

 

I would modify your last sentence to ready "Without accepted and general social rules groups are more likely to operate in a form that is anachic and as aresult the group is more likely to break-up"

 

Extinction is a bit of a stretch on the indiviual basis as there are lots of other groups to join if you leave your own - but a set of social rules that are no longer accepted by suffient individuals is at risk of being 'extinct'

 

 

[facthunter]

In the animal kingdom and tribal situations blood is thicker than water often. Aren't we considering situations long ago? What happens today is not proven to do one thing or another . It can only be reviewed in retrospect as to the effect.. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

In the animal kingdom and tribal situations blood is thicker than water often. Aren't we considering situations long ago? What happens today is not proven to do one thing or another . It can only be reviewed in retrospect as to the effect.. Nev

I accept that the relative viscocity of water and blood at the same atmospheric conditions would support a factual assessment that blood is thicker than water, but as a comment in support or denial of morality as an element within evolution I'm trying hard to not just hold my head in hands and groan.

 

Nature vs Nurture questions answered with trite sayings = belief without or in the face of evidence.

 

 

[facthunter]

Sorry if the analogy didn't work. It's about looking after your own (perpetuating your own genes) A widely accepted driving force in the evolutionary process. Trite sayings, belief without evidence? A bit over the top with me isn't it.? I hope you haven't suffered any permanent injury.. Kasper. (the FRIENDLY Ghost) Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

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

Little do you know of my 12 disciples. They know who they are and and how to greet one another with our secret handshake.

 

The fact is that some atheists, while denying the existence of God . . .

Atheists don't have to deny that your God exists. I don't wander around denying the existence of the Tooth fairy either. Or the Easter Bunny.

 

. . . any factual history written in the Bible . . .

There may well be history written in the bible but it is a very long bow to draw to claim it is factual. It is a story written and re-written, by many men, over thousands of years, in languages that have long ceased to exist and cannot be reliably translated or interpreted, and those writers all had a particular bias in their thinking and understanding and interpretation of events they claimed to witness. Provenance for any printed bible is non-existent. Nothing in the bible would ever past the most basic test of authenticity for an historian.

 

. . . loudly express condemnation of God, or disappointment that their wishes were not granted, and quote from the Bible to support their case.

Can't say I've ever been disappointed by God. The writing on the wall in the concentration camp was not, thank God, my writing. Most likely, it was some terribly unfortunate person living in hell with the prospect of unspeakable terror all around. Can't blame them for a momentary lapse in their faith - even JC had one of those "why hast thou forsaken me?".

 

I was very happy as a Christian. I loved the feeling it gave me of purpose and contentment of doing and being good. But I was young at the time and believed everything my teachers told me. Some aspects of it seemed strange to me, illogical but nobody was asking me to think just accept that we can't understand the way God works and that he works in mysterious ways. It was even suggested that it was sinful to try to understand the inconsistencies. Just have faith and all will be well. Don't want to be a doubting thomas do we?

 

Eventually, you grow up and with an enquiring mind, question everything. Religion is addictive and very hard to walk away from. And the closer you get to the fox hole of advanced old age the harder it is to be an atheist. My personal belief, yes I allow myself one, is that if I live a good life and don't do anything that I would personally rate as a "Mortal Sin" (as opposed to the many invented by the catholic clergy to keep themselves in employment) that if I am to be judged I would be judged fairly by a fair and just God.

 

I cannot imagine how anyone came up with the concept of punishment for the sins of your forebears. Whether you call it Original Sin or not GG, you infer the same thing with painful childbirth etc. Could you imagine going into Court in the most corrupt legal system in the world and being punished for a crime convicted by your g.g.g.g.g.g.g.g (etc) grandfather? And that your children and their children would also be punished for the same crime committed 6,000 years ago?

 

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.

If you don't believe in the concept behind a religious doctrine whether it be Scientology or Norse Gods or Judeo/Christian/Islamic why would it matter who or how it was invented?

 

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

"atheist hate" this would be hate that is expressed by atheists?

 

I agree with others that "disdain" would be more appropriate than hate.

 

But, to be fair, some prominent atheists have expressed hatred for indoctrination of small children as being a form of child abuse. I doubt that in doing that whether the atheists would distinguish between any of the multitudinous Faiths who practice such indoctrination. There is a bit of an uproar in the USA at the moment about Christians who insist their children will be cured by prayer and not doctors and the children die in droves as prayers have the usual effect. I think most Christians would hate this as much as atheists. But some Christian-dominated state governments in the USA will not intervene on behalf of the children against the wishes of their delusional parents.

 

Oh, and I think I've been pretty even handed in my disdain for all religions. I don't know much about the Jewish faith other than what I've read in Christian versions of Jewish scriptures. Can't say I care for most of the 613 commandments. And then there are the capital crimes of heresy and apostasy invented by the Muslims but also practiced by Christians until relatively recent times.

 

I don't feel any more need to explore Scientology than I do Mormonism or any other religious doctrine. Why would I when you have the religion of science - and that ain't Scientology.

 

 

[Marty_d]

"religion of science" - oxymoron there Don. Science is about what's measurable, observable and quantifiable. Faith doesn't come into it.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I have a question. Why or how can it be explained when some people have near misses but come away unscathed as if "somebody " is looking after them ? And some people just seem to have rotten luck and are taken out in a freak accident? Or am I just reading too much into it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There you go again Don, denial of the Bible, yet a quote from it.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I have a question. Why or how can it be explained when some people have near misses but come away unscathed as if "somebody " is looking after them ? And some people just seem to have rotten luck and are taken out in a freak accident? Or am I just reading too much into it.

And some people win Lotto more than once. People say "what are the odds" but statistically they're exactly the same every time. Which is why some people put in a ticket every week for 60 years and never get a win of any value, while someone else buys a ticket once in their life on a whim and hits the jackpot.

 

If there was a god looking after people, it's a bit strange how he totally ignores those in most need and concentrates on middle-class Western nations.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Which is why some people put in a ticket every week for 60 years and never get a win of any value, while someone else buys a ticket once in their life on a whim and hits the jackpot.

Shutup.

 

 

[Bikky]

I have a question. Why or how can it be explained when some people have near misses but come away unscathed as if "somebody " is looking after them ? And some people just seem to have rotten luck and are taken out in a freak accident? Or am I just reading too much into it.

Just like when the extremely unlikely happens. Ever thrown something in the general direction of a rubbish bin and then watched in amazement as it hit the target? I doubt it was god in his free time having a bit of fun. More likely coincidence at work.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Every time I make a decision the universe splits into another parallel universe. I have survived many near misses in this version of the universe, but was less fortunate in others. For the benefit of others I will try not to make decisions, as their future may be less favourable in my universe. It's like when we were told that every time you breathe a Chinese baby dies, and we tried not to breathe. But perhaps my decision not to make decisions is a decision?

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I have a question. Why or how can it be explained when some people have near misses but come away unscathed as if "somebody " is looking after them ? And some people just seem to have rotten luck and are taken out in a freak accident? Or am I just reading too much into it.

Near misses happen, complete disasters (hits) happen. Some of the near misses are only near to the person involved. Some near misses others would say - "He was miles away from it!"

 

If random location is the determinant of whether you get hit by the truck or get missed by the truck it's just a statistical fact that given enough occurrences of the situations that some recipients will be in the spot needed for a miss and some will be in the spot needed for a hit. And of course you need to consider the huge number of "no-where near" misses too. How far away from a hit (or a near near miss) do you have to be to stop considering it a miss at all?

 

If you had true figures for the incidence of each - I bet there would be way way more no-where near misses, and the number of near misses is purely defined by how close you define "near" is. Hits is another statics that will only be significant for comparison AFTER you have defined what constitutes a near miss.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Loosely based on the posts above, I hate it when there's a near miss and people start raving on about "Well if he was 2 feet closer he would have been dead for sure" ..

 

Well he wasn't and he didn't and he could have also been 2 feet further away you Drama Queen ....

 

 

[Bikky]

"Thank god! That was close ...", annoys the bejesus out of me.

 

What's worse is when people see someone less fortunate than themselves and have the nerve to say, "There, but for the grace of god, go I."

 

What are they really saying here? How are they more deserving of his/her grace than another?

 

"Must be god's will.", is another ripper.

 

Without doubt, the winner has to be ... "God works in mysterious ways."

 

Another way of saying, "F%*ked if I know, but I'm going to sound mystical and intelligent here".

 

 

[Marty_d]

How are they more deserving of his/her grace than another?

What's really funny is when both teams at a sporting event call on god's support.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I don't feel any more need to explore Scientology than I do Mormonism or any other religious doctrine. Why would I when you have the religion of science - and that ain't Scientology.

Yes, and therein lies the problem. Speciation is observable but macro evolution is not. It is simply a theory based on speciation extrapolated. Because macro evolution has not been observed, it is simply a belief, a faith or, as you term it, "the religion of science". In the end, it is the religion of science ...which (pardon the pun) is always evolving. This means your beliefs need to be adjusted and at times re-assigned considerably. On the other hand, a belief in God is straightforward, the KISS principle faith, if you like. If God made the world, and you believe this, then it simply a different religion from the "religion of science".

 

In summary, some may "have the religion of science" (not Scientology) and others have a religion based on an amazing designer and creator who made the universe, the laws of the universe, the mega items such as stars and the micro items such as sub-atomic particles ...and everything in between. The stupendous complexity is difficult to comprehend with the human mind and, no doubt, would be far more difficult to design than to comprehend. Yet many claim that everything came together without a designer through the process of evolution.

 

My belief system is that, having fairly examined the theory of evolution, I cannot believe it to be valid because it is simply too improbable that exceedingly complex organisms have evolved from pond scum into what they are now, especially when there is the h-u-g-e problem of irreducible complexity. Many components of a complex organism simply cannot work in part, for instance the eye. It is extremely improbable that the eye components evolved in their various parts and somehow came together to work as a unit, all without a designer. Such a concept stretches entirely beyond my thinking and therefore I cannot accept the "religion of science" for myself. It is far less improbable for me to accept that God designed and created it all. As a result, after thinking this through, I have rejected evolution (or "the religion of science") as improbable and I have become a believer in God.

 

 

[eightyknots]

What's really funny is when both teams at a sporting event call on god's support.

Yes, and this is done in wars as well: very sad indeed.

 

 

[rgmwa]

My belief system is that, having fairly examined the theory of evolution, I cannot believe it to be valid because it is simply too improbable that exceedingly complex organisms have evolved from pond scum into what they are now, especially when there is the h-u-g-e problem of irreducible complexity. Many components of a complex organism simply cannot work in part, for instance the eye. It is extremely improbable that the eye components evolved in their various parts and somehow came together to work as a unit, all without a designer. Such a concept stretches entirely beyond my thinking and therefore I cannot accept the "religion of science" for myself. It is far less improbable for me to accept that God designed and created it all. As a result, after thinking this through, I have rejected evolution (or "the religion of science") as improbable and I have become a believer in God.

Fair enough, but then if God designed and created everything, who do you think designed and created God?

 

rgmwa

 

 

[bexrbetter]

the KISS principle faith,

I thought that was "rock and roll all night and party everyday"?

 

Sung by the "Devil" himself ...

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Fair enough, but then if God designed and created everything, who do you think designed and created God?rgmwa

Ahh, infinity, another concept unable to be grasped by the human mind.

 

To prove this point, in high school our science teacher asked us to draw a line 6" long and then from the start go halfway (3") then again (1.5") etc etc and tell us how many steps it took to get to the end - not one student said "never". I did get a compliment for arguing the width of my pen did not allow for infinite though

 

 

[Marty_d]

especially when there is the h-u-g-e problem of irreducible complexity. Many components of a complex organism simply cannot work in part, for instance the eye.

Ah, now here's the thing about "intelligent design" and "irreducible complexity". It's not irreducible.

 

Take the eye, since you mention it. Many simple organisms around today have photoreceptors, or light-sensitive pigments. These enable the organism to evade predators, find mates or food. It's not a huge evolutionary leap to back these cells with opaque ones, which allows the organism to determine which direction the light is coming from.

 

Next step is to make the opaque cells into a concave surface. This lets the organism detect the light direction even better - if the light source is straight ahead of the "eye" it stimulates all the photoreceptors, whereas if it's off to one side only some of them would be stimulated.

 

From there, if the concave shape deepens until the photoreceptor cells go almost all the way around (leaving a pinhole), you get an actual image being identified. The nautilus for example - it's eyes do not have a solid lens, rather just a pinhole aperture.

 

Then the lens develops. Not as unlikely as it sounds, because the primitive photoreceptors already had a transparent front layer for protection. As the cup shape developed this thickened to fill the cup. Small changes in the transparent layer vary the refractive index, so this eventually evolved into the lens which we, and most other animals, have today.

 

If I designed the eye I probably wouldn't have included a blind spot (which we have but the octopus doesn't), and I probably would have made it capable of seeing far more of the spectrum than our eyes do - why not ultra-violet and infra-red for example?

 

 

[rgmwa]

Yes, certainly room for improvement in the design of my eyes, not to mention just about every other bit I can think of. Just adds to the evidence for lack of intelligent design if you ask me. A truly intelligent designer would have come up with a much better example of me than me.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Bikky]

We obviously can't fathom how incredibly complex the universe is, but do we need to ascribe the "design" to a higher being than ourselves?

 

I couldn't design it, therefore, it must have been someone better than me ... god exists!

 

Does an incredible design need a designer? It does if you're human because that's how we think.

 

Many of us have a tendency for anthropomorphism, so we call the designer god (whichever flavour you like).

 

Doesn't really help us understand what's going on but makes some of us feel better about things we don't understand.

 

I wonder if dolphins believe in a giant dolphin god in the sky.

 

But of course, they don't think do they? Nor do they have souls. I read it in a book somewhere so it must be true.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

"religion of science" - oxymoron there Don. Science is about what's measurable, observable and quantifiable. Faith doesn't come into it.

Faith does come into it for me because I'm too lazy to do the measuring and observing for myself.

 

But I have faith in Scientific Method and in the scientific community to do sound peer reviews.

 

I can't even be bothered to thoroughly understand Relativity but I know it is a pretty good explanation for a lot of things.

 

Evolution is the only one you don't need faith for - just look into the eyes of a great ape and if you can't see a family reseblence then you'd better get yourself off to Specsavers!