The opposite, actually. Knowledge based on seeing. Sad that you choose to remain blind - but of course that's your right.
Genesis 2:7. I always find it funny that the more religious someone is, the more ignorant they are of even religious works.
The interesting part is that few theists know that 2 Popes have declared Darwinian evolution to be true, based on the scientific research by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences itself. Kinda leaves Jan standing all alone by himself in the desert, the air shimmering above the sand.
In the bible. I think the substance varies depending on your version. Clay in some, dust from the ground in others. Thats why I said dirt. What does your bible say? Alex
I think many theists would be surprised to discover that The Big Bang Theory was the brain child of a catholic priest. Thinking about it my problem with believers is they seem to have less knowledge about what is in their bible than the average atheist (if there is such). And their failure to recognise the mistakes or immorality contained in their good book. It is wonderful that the bible pulls together all these ancient stories as it gives us and understanding of how folk explained many things they did not understand thousands of years ago. However it seems the beauty of the works is lost on the very folk who claim it as the perfect word of God. I like reading the bible because of the picture it paints of times where science was not available to give the facts about matters they could only guess about and the attempts to lay down what for them would have been wisdom. It is what it is no more no less. Alex
If that were true, I've had discussions with folks who have that view and understand completely why they do, it's not a big deal if you get to the heart of where Jan's coming from. On the flip side, if you told me Jan was going to claim unequivocally that black was white, up was down and he travels to other worlds in the Spiritual God World, I'll have to admit defeat and throw in the towel.
Nope. It's well and thoroughly researched - also, remarkably useful and explanatory. Things that are "just" claims look like this:
There is very strong evidence of a common ancestor and a demarcation point where homo sapiens split from other hominid apes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm You just can't keep denying the evidence provided by examples of evolutionary adaption, mutation and natural selection. The evidence is overwhelming and you look like a fool for denying it. Just as the remarkably intelligent and versatile cuttlefish evolved from a slug, homo sapiens evolved from a common tree-dwelling ancestor shared by all great apes (Hominids). This is how it works: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution See the "fractal pattern" of evolution, the adoption of mathematical growth patterns? See the "exponential function" of evolutionary growth and diversity? These are the scientific proofs of the mathematics of emergent life, diversity, and the gradual honing of dedicated skills necessary for its continuation.
It's interesting the Vatican maintains the facts of the theory, but don't they still spin it into a Theistic Evolutionism or something like that? Either way, lots of Christians would just as soon flip the Pope a bird than hear him out on his views of science.
That would be a shame. I hope giving Jan the benefit of the doubt would perhaps shed some light on this if he's so inclined.
Well yes, they just went back further and called it "original cause", which is really unknown to theists and atheist alike. In effect the modern notion of God actually makes it "impotent" to actually do anything, but is an idealized version of human morals.
There is no evidence and never will be but their (theists) game is all about talking about God before the claim has been established. They rush past establishment of their claim which is in itself evidence that they have nothing to argue against or for. Without the rejection of their claims they would have less than the little they rely upon for their world view. Theists do no more than move the chat to "lets discuss the attributes of God" without establishing that there is anything in reality to chat about. We fall into their trap by seeking to disprove or to reject their claims when all we need do is walk away and say zip for them to fade and disappear. I like to give them a reason to exist by engaging them. Engaging a theist is however like beating up a kid who is unable to defend. But to engage them is like feeding wild animals in so far as one does them no favours really and reduces their ability to survive. Without our rejection or engagement they will disappear due to irrelevance. They need opposition to survive and appear relevant. They will never provide evidence for there is none.. it is only our rejection that provides any basis for their claims. If we ignore them they will fade because they have nothing and upon that nothing their only hope of sustaining relevance is being in an arguement that elevates their irrelevance to at least being present as a side that supports something which even they can not define. They are broken but still insist we damage them more by demanding we dismantle their superstition to the point of absolute irrelevance. If we ignore them they move to total irrelevance and so they present nonsence in their futile attempt to stay in the conversation... and so we bite and seek to prove their wrongness and in so doing give them life that without our rejection they could not have. Without an atheist to argue with a theist fades into nothingness. They have nothing unless the atheist acknowledges that they made silly claims and calls upon them for support of such claims. They love that..without rejection they fail to exist. If we left them to claim crap is reality and walked past they would wither and die. However the role of the atheist in the system of things must be to be there so believers have a position to oppose and convince themselves they have got it right somehow. The theist is a delicate human that we should class as an endangered species for at this point in the evolution of humans they represent a species on its way out fading away to provide space for the new human who is more clever and able to exist unfettered by superstition and able to move forward without the crippling burden of superstition and denial of reality. We are probably the last humans to be able to interact with the endangered theists and no doubt our grand children will marvle that we existed at a time where theists walked the planet and somehow survived despite their ignorance and reliance upon superstition to manage their lives. Our grandchildren will wonder how they (theists) managed to survive despite their meaningless baseless philosophy and only with no more than a foolish injection of a make believe entity they knew nothing about but managed to describe as God. If you know a theisist take time to be near them and to marvel at the fact they have survived so long even though their relevance vanished many years ago. The new human is here and natural selection sees the old superstitious human becoming no more than a curiosity to be studied by historians of the future. Alex
Apparently atheists are the most knowledgeable people of religious scripture. A fact which probably has led to the reasonable conclusions that scripture has very few factual events, but must be taken as metaphor and analogy, i.e. mythology. Knowledge of scripture leads to atheism......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/
Do you hear that buzzing sound, that's the hornets leaving the nest. Truth is anathema and it's not truth if at least one of the gods doesn't say so.
I heard / saw a youtube vid where Matt said that "atheist" was the word used by the Romans to describe christians. ....so It seems christians are the original atheists. Ha ha Alex
/// Several times recently, I said atheos (the root of atheist) meant without gods & was used to refer to those who did not believe in the correct gods then later was used to refer to christians. I did not specify Romans tho. Christians were not quite the original atheists yet were considered by many to be atheos shortly after christianity started. The word was used to refer to them long long before they used it. BTW, a certain someone here being intentionally ignorant perpetually claims the original meaning is "without god" which is incorrect. The original meaning is without gods. I corrected him several times. <>
