Atheist knowledge

[turboplanner]

Yes, that's the one.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

This is an extension of the "intelligent design" argument; it started with eyes, and flying. Attenborough elegantly dealt with them. So now it's getting a bit more subtle. Still crap, however it's wrapped.

 

I suppose this will continue to entertain people indefinitely. It does not entertain me. Your argument is destroyed, in my eyes, by your use of the term "Darwinism", which indicates that you regard that as another form of faith.

 

We are still learning about evolution - for which there is a vast amount of evidence, gaps or no; however there is NO such evidence to support religious doctrine - only doctrine, which changes continuously to de-emphasize the more unpalatable parts of it.

 

Take your damn dogma and go somewhere else.

 

Somebody once asked David Attenborough whether he believed in God. He pointed to a young African child, and said (as best I recall it) " That child is losing his sight because of a parasitic worm that is destroying his optic nerve. I think that a God that allows that sort of thing to happen is not worth believing in."

 

I agree with him.

 

 

[rankamateur]

It has been a problem through out history for all doctrines, hence the need for two of the early, an contradictory islamic texts to be eaten by a goat and the problem went away.

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is an extension of the "intelligent design" argument; it started with eyes, and flying. Attenborough elegantly dealt with them. So now it's getting a bit more subtle. Still crap, however it's wrapped.

I suppose this will continue to entertain people indefinitely. It does not entertain me. Your argument is destroyed, in my eyes, by your use of the term "Darwinism", which indicates that you regard that as another form of faith.

 

We are still learning about evolution - for which there is a vast amount of evidence, gaps or no; however there is NO such evidence to support religious doctrine - only doctrine, which changes continuously to de-emphasize the more unpalatable parts of it.

 

Take your damn dogma and go somewhere else.

 

Somebody once asked David Attenborough whether he believed in God. He pointed to a young African child, and said (as best I recall it) " That child is losing his sight because of a parasitic worm that is destroying his optic nerve. I think that a God that allows that sort of thing to happen is not worth believing in."

 

I agree with him.

If you want to make imbecilic and hateful posts that's up to you.

 

I do not regard Darwinism as a form of faith, and I don't have a dogma to take anywhere.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Transitional species: why have they not been found? By their very nature they would be impossibly rare. From the millions of generations of a species we find a few dozen fossils, and yet we are a expecting to also find, preserved thru all the ages, that most rare of all: transitional species! Stamp collectors might illustrate this: millions of perfect copies of a stamp are printed, but a short print run has a small error. The few that are recovered are prized by collectors- but most are lost to time. So it is with transitional species.

 

Like the search for civilisations on other planets, finding the needle in the haystack...which haystack amoung billions?

 

We assume that complex organisms are a single living thing. Not really correct. They are actually colonies of mutually-supportive organisms. Most of the cells in you or I belong to other species. This might mean that flowers and other complex structures developed in relative isolation and were later assembled (like Lego) into larger organisms.

 

To butcher Mark Twain's famous line, rumours of the death of Darwinism are greatly exaggerated. That his theory is incomplete is easily acknowledged-but it's still the nearest thing to an explanation of what we see in nature. Those who come to bury Darwin should offer up a better alternative.

 

Surely we cannot bury the king until there is new one?

 

Many of us need some stability, some framework on which we can hang our sense of reality; if not Darwinism, then what? For some it is religion. I envy them their faith. For me, until something better comes along, it is Rupert Sheldrake. His theories of Morphic Fields and Morphic Resonance make a lot of sense, and explain much that conventional science cannot.

 

 

[facthunter]

You don't expect a pioneer to get everything right. Freud didn't and neither did Darwin. Darwin came from a very religious family, and had a big job going down the road he did. in the society of the time that he inhabited . Freud and Darwin are still well worth studying, but neither are the final word. They were the brave ones who postulated the theory.

 

. If Life comes from another place in space how did it start there? You are just shifting the problem. If there is intelligent design how come there are so many mistakes?. The appendix,. poor location of the optic nerve in the human eye, being a couple that spring to mind. Your genes can be modified by lifestyle practices in one generation. Do drugs and find out.

 

The idea that GOD designed it because it is SO complex has no logic. Anyhow where did GOD come from and which god are we talking about?. There is a good reason why life forms are so amazingly complex, and it is that an ENORMOUSE amount of time has enabled change/modification to occur. from simple to complex A few life forms haven't changed much for millions of years. ie Sharks, things like slaters, crocodiles etc because they didn't have to Heavy metals and the larger atoms( elements) are only formed in the oldest parts of the universe.. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

[geoffreywh]

Rupert Sheldrake looks/sounds (to me) to be a little like that Erich van Daniken chappie who created a furor (created being the operative word) with his quasi-scientific novel "Chariots of the Gods?) .............. Onto the video posted by Dear Old Koreelah ......................I heard Sheldrake ridiculing 10 scientific Dogma. One of them, "The speed of light is constant" was being made fun of ( watch a little of the video to see the true definition of a smart arse) I was puzzled as I had not heard that. After reading a bit I see a couple of scientists believe that the speed does vary (according to the purity? of the vacuum in which it travels) The speed variation is quite small ( a noventillionth of a meter per second I believe- or 10 to the power of 54!) . You would think from the ridiculing given to the scientist to whom Sheldrake is speaking that the variation is in the order of several hundred miles an hour, after that bit I stopped watching. If you have to watch that to feel good in your skin then you are indeed in a bad way......Watch Richard Dawkins and see some brainwashed individuals attempt to talk down his speeches................................

 

 

[facthunter]

The shroud and remains of the Ark etc I am sceptical of and various scrolls. Some are fakes. I actually keep up with archeological finds with inscriptions or images of anything at all when I can. . Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Old K,

 

I have trouble taking anyone seriously who turns up in bare feet and a suit. That just put my b/s radar on full power but has nothing to do with an analysis of what he is propounding.

 

His main thesis that he repeated many times is to me completely false and based on claim of fact that cannot be sustained. He says that most educated people believe in the ten dogmas of Science and yet I can't think of a single scientist worthy of the title who would accept that. If any scientist thought anything was fixed in the universe for all time, we would never had made the progress that has been made. Einstein is a classic case. Totally original thinking that couldn't be validated until decades after he proposed his theories.

 

I heard Professor Brian Cox (Manchester U) say, just a couple of days ago, that Science is a a discipline that freely admits its own fallibility. It is only the dogmatic who claim infallibility based on zero credible evidence. It is the dogmatic who go looking for "facts" that fit their ideology whereas Science looks at the evidence and draws logical conclusions. Science, by definitions, is always open to new ideas.

 

Over the millennia, science has frequently got it wrong but at any time you want to consider, it had the best idea that man could come up with at the time based on evidence and peer review.

 

Often Science has been severely constrained by religious dogma. And the Intelligent Design b/s is another feeble attempt to deny science in favour of dogma. It is in only our lifetime that the Catholic Church finally apologised for its treatment of that great genius Galileo. It has never to this day apologised for burning Bruno at the stake in the Campo di Fiori in front of St Peters. Not very Christian of them was it?

 

Rupert Shelldrake strikes me as an intellectual fraud. Again, adopting the trappings of Science and Philosophy to promote some lunatic theory. "Complimentary" medicine has never been able to be proven efficacious. If a particular aspect were found to be kosher, it wouldn't be alternative medicine any more it would be mainstream.

 

What Science would say about most things like Morphic Resonance and Chiropractic and all the pathies (homo, osteo, etc.) is not that it is utterly impossible and stupid but that it is simply unproven. Do the studies, have them peer reviewed and accepted and they are no longer old wives tales.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . I heard Sheldrake ridiculing 10 scientific Dogma. One of them, "The speed of light is constant".

Again, Brian Cox said that there are speculative theories that there are multiple universes and that in each universe the speed of light and gravity may have different values from the universes we know. Science is the literal opposite of dogma. Dogma is for those who crave certainty and will sacrifice intelligent reason to attain it.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I'm not a fan of climate change theory. I can think of many reasons to argue against it. But, when the preponderance of scientific understanding says it is likely, it is the best advice we have and can be ignored only by those who do not wish to see.

 

Climate science may turn out to be wrong and it may be a few hundred years before it can be proven true or false but for now, it is the best advice available.

 

It is a bit like particle physics, I don't really understand it, I don't really like what it says but I accept that it is based on sound logic, peer reviewed and is the best information that we can have in 2014. I feel I'm in good company to the extent that Einstein didn't like it either but at least he understood it.

 

 

[facthunter]

I would imagine that making a true assessment of a lot of scientific matters would be difficult if burdened by some strong belief that you had of a FAITH nature, that was in conflict with it. Through history the discoverer of natural phenomenon had to be careful, being almost always opposed by the churches who attributed many (if not all) things to the direct hand of god. Most of us now would accept many things as being scientifically explainable and attribute less to God's intervention directly. Would it not be logical to expect this trend to continue?. The amount discovered in the last 100 years would probably exceed all the previous knowledge before that. With computer power increasing exponentially we have new possibilities of discovery never believed possible a very short time ago. How could it be that this new knowledge would not continue to change the way we do things as it already has? Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Turbo,

 

There are some interesting archeological and geological finds over the years that indicate that some bible events may have actually happened. However, there is so little as to be utterly meaningless and even if something like that reported in the Bible happened, we don't know who said what to whom and who did what. The great tenets of judeo/christian/islamic belief systems derive from that very flawed document the Bible. It can't be literally read without seeming utterly ludicrous (world flood/Noah) and there is nobody on the planet who can say definitively what is literal and what is metaphorical even if Popes claim infallibility. Sectarian wars in Europe like the 30 Years War reduced the population of some countries to one-third of what it was before the war commenced. And that's just between Christians who claim the same holy texts as their guide.

 

Nobody claims that the fabulous work done by one of the greatest scientists of all time is the beginning, middle and end of the story about life on Earth. But it is certainly a damn good start and the best, most rational theory available on this planet. That is beyond question in 2014. But that doesn't mean that the Theory is final - it will continue to be studied over the coming decades and centuries.

 

I laugh heartily at the "transitional species" nonsense. Every stage of evolution involves transitional species. Go have a look in the mirror and you will see one. There are many examples of transitions in the human series over a couple of million years leading to homo sapiens.

 

And, if you can look a Gorilla in the face and tell me that it is no relative of homo sapiens, then I can't help you.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Don sadly the bible has been rewritten many times, god is the fussiest editor

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . Through history the discoverer of natural phenomenon had to be careful, being almost always opposed by the churches . . . .

When the cunning french linguist, Jean-François Champollion, cracked the Rosetta Stone the Catholic Church tried desperately to have it suppressed. The problem was it proved that people had been around a lot longer than the 6,000 odd years that the Bible said that we had been on Earth. The Rosetta Stone helped reveal the detailed written history of the Nile Valley that stretched back thousands of years before Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden and made a mockery of the Great Flood story.

 

In the end the Catholic Church failed - again - in its desire to perpetuate ignorance and superstition in the face of scientific fact.

 

 

[facthunter]

Some bits get left out and new "versions" are printed. Harper Collins has exclusive rights to print One version. Owned by Rupert Murdoch.. It's the word of God though.

 

Don I was in Barcelona about 1981 and there was a church just near where I was staying . It had a placard near the entrance saying " This place is the House of GOD. If you are not properly dressed, do not come in. " Strikes me as not being what Christ would have said..Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Rupert Sheldrake looks/sounds (to me) to be a little like that Erich van Daniken chappie who created a furor (created being the operative word) with his quasi-scientific novel "Chariots of the Gods?) ....after that bit I stopped watching...

That's a disappointing reaction, Geoff. I wish you could sit thru the whole talk, and a few more of his.

 

Any scientist would be offended if they were compared to von Daniken (whose convictions for fraud are on public record).

 

Who was ridiculed? Sheldrake must be one of the most mild-mannered people I have ever heard. His theories are based on a lifetime of careful research. What he says is revolutionary and deserving of more study. I would be interested to know if any of his ideas has been disproven by science.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . I would be interested to know if any of his ideas has been disproven by science.

Science has not / could not disprove the existence of God.

 

The really fun thing about conspiracy theories is that they can rarely be exhaustively disproven the same as they can rarely be proven. Not that Shelldrake is into conspiracy theories.

 

I doubt that Shelldrake's theories could be disproven or that a serious scientist would consider it worth his/her while to invest time into trying.

 

 

[facthunter]

People of deep faith and deep conviction, Like some earnest Priests, often lose it when they see atrocities in situations like WARS. Man does wars. You can't blame your god for the bad behaviour. It's probably ingrained response to perceived threat going back in time to tribal family clan, situations of the need for self preservation. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Harper Collins has exclusive rights to print One version. Owned by Rupert Murdoch.. It's the word of God though.

I don't see how anyone's version can be laughed at more than any other person's version.

 

I like reading King James, lots of cool fantasy adventures and horror movie stuff like eating your own babies.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Old K,

I have trouble taking anyone seriously who turns up in bare feet and a suit. That just put my b/s radar on full power but has nothing to do with an analysis of what he is propounding...

Most charlatans and con-men dress in suits (and shoes). That gives the well-dressed a bad name.

 

...His main thesis that he repeated many times is to me completely false and based on claim of fact that cannot be sustained...

...then science should disprove him.

 

...It is the dogmatic who go looking for "facts" that fit their ideology...

If only this were true. Scientists are human and I'm sure many do exactly that.

 

....whereas Science looks at the evidence and draws logical conclusions...Science, by definitions, is always open to new ideas...

That's as it should be, but what about the evidence that science cannot explain? Anyone who comes up with a plausible explanation that doesn't fit " standard science" is ridiculed. Sheldrake is one example.

 

...Often Science has been severely constrained by religious dogma...

...and Sheldrake is saying the same has happened with science.

 

...Rupert Shelldrake strikes me as an intellectual fraud. Again, adopting the trappings of Science and Philosophy to promote some lunatic theory...

You might find he has done decades of fair-dinkum research before publicising his theories.

 

...What Science would say about most things like Morphic Resonance and Chiropractic and all the pathies (homo, osteo, etc.) is not that it is utterly impossible and stupid but that it is simply unproven. Do the studies, have them peer reviewed and accepted and they are no longer old wives tales.

This is where we agree, Don. Why is Sheldrake speaking out? He wants more proper research done.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...I doubt that Shelldrake's theories could be disproven or that a serious scientist would consider it worth his/her while to invest time into trying.

Why the hostility to a new idea? No wonder few scientists will stand with Sheldrake. Not good for their careers. Perhaps like Gallileo all over again.

 

There are several well-documented phenomena that "standard science" cannot explain. Sheldrake took an interest in these. After decades of study he believes he has an explanation. Why can people not give him a decent hearing?

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

We are still learning about evolution - for which there is a vast amount of evidence, gaps or no; however there is NO such evidence to support religious doctrine - only doctrine, which changes continuously to de-emphasize the more unpalatable parts of it.

It's actually the exact opposite Daffydd - science keeps changing rather than religious doctrine. The text books for the former are regularly re-written, the latter remains the same.

 

Take your damn dogma and go somewhere else.

Ooooh.... question atheist doctrine or the high priest Darwin and you get a strong reaction! This is not a scientific, inquiring mind but a closed mind folks.

 

Transitional species: why have they not been found? By their very nature they would be impossibly rare. From the millions of generations of a species we find a few dozen fossils, and yet we are a expecting to also find, preserved thru all the ages, that most rare of all: transitional species!

Why do you claim this OK? Charles Darwin* himself stated that transitional fossils ought to be the most abundant types found and acknowledged that his theory rested on this being the case. So you disagree with him?

 

* As a scientist I believe he was quite a good one and was frank in his statements; just that - outside of natural selection - the rest of his hypothesis didn't pan out.

 

 

[facthunter]

Established medical "Method" has it's own inertia. People get in the system and find a comfortable spot where they do NO new things, just do procedures (sometimes not needed) to get the kids through UNI or replace the Aston and pay the mansion off. The FDA in the US is supported by the large Pharmaceuticals who have a lot of pull in the system, directed to maximising consumption of their drugs most of which have significant and harmful side effects. Some do benefit but shouldn't be relied on long term. Many pain killing drugs are kept on for years and that is not the way they were intended to be used. Good medicine addresses the whole person and the environment they inhabit. Nev