Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

Con.....
Your wasting your time acknowledging As.

Trust me on this from multiple encounters with the egocentric fool.
(Which is why I have him on ignore and am actually keeping this one on ignore.)

Oh Wraoth,, C'mon,, these ARE Atheists, after all,, When they see that new movie coming out tht Darwins dying words were that he made up the whole thing,, THEY WILL SAY THAT'S WRONG TOO LOL

-

reply to post by WraothAscendant
Just one more little outburst of self-love before I take my leave:

Trust me on this from multiple encounters with the egocentric fool.
(Which is why I have him on ignore and am actually keeping this one on ignore.)

The 'egocentric fool' referred to above is me.

Truly amazing, some of the folk you meet here on ATS. Makes you marvel at the infinite variety of human character.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

And Einstein is QUOTED as saying how he didn't like how atheists use him as back up.
Thats the extra funny thing of that particular argument.

That's what I call divine providence!
That quote was perfect.
Owned by Einstein...

Originally posted by undo

Yeah I read James Randi essay debunking Global warming and how those that came up with it in the first place are calling it climate change now because they don't know if their coming or going. The Mel wants to pin that on the religious right when all WE want is for them to make up their damn minds. They got to wait to see how each one will affect their precious natural selection BS first. Then watch them use the words interchangeably to suit their theory just like everything else they spin

- Con

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by WraothAscendant

 

Just one more little outburst of self-love before I take my leave:

Trust me on this from multiple encounters with the egocentric fool.
(Which is why I have him on ignore and am actually keeping this one on ignore.)

The 'egocentric fool' referred to above is me.

Truly amazing, some of the folk you meet here on ATS. Makes you marvel at the infinite variety of human character.

Hey,, we are all just a product of our evolution and our own subjective moral code. Can't help what Character gene we got.

I did not read this thread nor most of the OP so perhaps I shouldn't be adding my opinion however I feel compelled. My reply is mainly only about the title of this thread.

Reality, history, religion, and the world around you are your own perceptions of what you believe to be "real." Accusing people of doing something wrong (in this case "airbrushing history") is not going to make your own perception of reality any more real then is their own at least according to "them." However debating the "facts" is something we must do. I guess by doing so we reassure ourselves of our own beliefs. Perhaps one day by arguing the "facts" we may all come to an agreement as to what is real and was is not. I really doubt that will happen however.

Choose your might.

Originally posted by undo

Well I think that was the point. That was said to one of the christians on the board. And I think you'll find I'm not exactly "status quo" on anything, and that includes "mainstream" belief systems of various kinds. I just go where the research leads me and if there's a conflict and no resolution for it, I file it as potentially false data. Evolution falls under that category as does Atheism, but only because we have 6000 years of history and artifacts to corroborate a great deal of what the various ancient texts declare.

This is a similar line of thinking, that I am starting to adopt.

We have oodles of testimony from reliable respected leaders of society over the milenia on their relationship with a personal God. Millions of people testify to this relationship.

In a court of law the testimony of one witness can get a defendant the death penalty or life in prison.

Hence the evidence is drastically in favor of a personal God. The ones who claim there is no God are the ones who believe in magic and fairy tales not supported by evidence.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Hey,, we are all just a product of our evolution and our own subjective moral code. Can't help what Character gene we got.

Bible morals are pretty arbitrary. hence we see these 'objective' morals evolving over time. From stoning women to not stoning women. Probably a good thing the NT appeared, as people following the abrahamic faith could still be stoning if it wasn't for the Ambrahamic SP1.

Anyway, what you raise are actually very interesting questions that people in fields like neurophilosophy are asking. A good example is the patient who after being a good father for most of his life started sexually abusing kids. After examination, he was found to have a tumour of the frontal lobe. When removed, his pedophile urges went away. However, a few years later they came back. He went straight to his neurologist, and the tumour was back. Removed again, all fine and dandy. So are pedophiles born or raised? Or both?

The frontal lobe appears to underpin complex and adaptive social behaviour.

It was essentially admitted earlier by some (whammy and someone else) that morals are learned and based on innate biologically systems. That is, sociobiology. You might say that's god-given, I would say evolved (and the evidence supports this).

Bit of a bad god who would allow genetics and biology to determine someone's ability to conform to moral behaviour, then possibly punish them for it. A great example is the split-brain dude Ramachandran examined, ask his right hemisphere, and he believed in god (the more emotional area), but the left (more logical/spatial/language) did not believe (of course, depends on degree of lateralisation/handedness).

Interesting stuff really.

ABe:

Originally posted by Conspiriology
The Mel wants to pin that on the religious right when all WE want is for them to make up their damn minds.

Didn't actually. I said right-wing. I think some of the more wacky religious right think it's all good. End times stuff and that. Quicker the rapture happens the better, heh.

It's more the right-wing libertarians who are big global warming deniers, some of whom are of course Xians (see how I don't blame their Xianity? It's probably fear of taxes and government interventionism hindering the very darwinian concept of the free market forces and competition). Thus, the think-tanks funded by industry such as Marshall etc.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Astyanax



Fulminating that evolution, natural selection, etc. are bunk doesn't cut any ice, you know. You have to prove it. Funny how tough that seems to be.

I can't prove a negative, but if you want to believe in Magic, I guess even Elvis will be back given enough time given enough time give enough time

Otherwise If I can't see macro evolution or touch macro evolution, smell it taste it,, THEN I GUESS I GOT TO BELIEVE IT BY

faith.


- Con




[edit on 24-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


Part of the confusion in all of this is not everyone on either side is on the same page, regardless of the issues. There are both christians and atheists with similar views on some subjects, including things like ETs and ufos, for example. However, just as many atheists as christians, don't believe in ETs and UFOs, simply because their code for examining the world will not allow it -- that is, unless they've experienced it first hand.

But christianity has already been "emasculated" as far as atheism is concerned and the textbooks all support them anyway, so the only remaining threat of any global consequence to UFOlogy and the people suffering from abductions are those atheists who think the experiencers are insane, drug addicts.

This counts for planetary and lunar anomalies as well. More and more christians, on the other hand, are starting to believe quite firmly in fact, that UFOs, planetary anomalies and ETs are a very real phenomemon and may account for alot of the references in ancient history. Some may differ on interpretation of what it all means, but overall, you will find fewer christians saying the experiencer is just crazy because ancient history does appear to support these phenomenon, repeatedly, as do the photographs coming to us from these places.

You won't read that in any mainstream text, however, because the folks in charge of who gets their work read and acknowledged, also have made doubly sure the data presented doesn't step on any important toes. For example, for years it was pointed out to the UFOlogical community that most of christendom was against the revelation of ET or even the idea of it, which may have been true at one point but I think it's quickly becoming the complete opposite. I think it's the supposed ETs who don't want the data released yet. When they do, the crap that hits the fan will be quite a bit different than anyone expects, I have a feeling. This planet is being prepared for the culling ( the harvest ) on one side, and the rapture on the other. Lots of activity behind the scenes.

Originally posted by melatonin


Bible morals are pretty arbitrary. hence we see these 'objective' morals evolving over time. From stoning women to not stoning women. Probably a good thing the NT appeared, as people following the abrahamic faith would still be stoning if it wasn't for the Ambrahamic SP1.

Hi Mel,, Well Bible Morals are hard to live by, it isn't easy.

Bit of a bad god who would allow genetics and biology to determine someone's ability to conform to moral behaviour, then possibly punish them for it.

For someone who doesn't believe in God,, you sure have an intimate knowledge to suggest a better way for him to operate.

Anyway, what you raise are actually very interesting questions that people in fields like neurophilosophy are asking. A good example is the patient who after being a good father for most of his life started sexually abusing kids. After examination, he was found to have a tumour of the frontal lobe. When removed, his pedophile urges went away. However, a few years later they came back. He went straight to his neurologist, and the tumour was back. Removed again, all fine and dandy. So are pedophiles born or raised? Or both?

I can only speculate Mel,, and that is most likely what Science will do

Religion explains what is beautiful what is love how to enjoy it and Science Can't tell me what love is the same way they can't tell me that a Rainbow is beautiful. They can tell me that it is water droplets acting like a prism or that I am getting high off my own phenylethlamine

But figuring out God doesn't disprove God,,


It explains him

or her

- Con








[edit on 24-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by melatonin


Bible morals are pretty arbitrary. hence we see these 'objective' morals evolving over time. From stoning women to not stoning women. Probably a good thing the NT appeared, as people following the abrahamic faith would still be stoning if it wasn't for the Ambrahamic SP1.

Bible Morals are clear if you understand the whole Bible and don;t take things completely out of context to compare them. In primitive times there was the law - there was capital punishment by stoning.

Jesus changed that"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"

It's really not an issue anymore for individuals. It is an issue as a matter of law and government.. not so clear, but itis a different issue than personal morality.

It was essentially admitted earlier by some (whammy and someone else) that morals are learned and based on innate biologically systems. That is, sociobiology. You might say that's god-given, I would say evolved (and the evidence supports this).

Which is why we should teach our kids the Bible before age 5 by which time most all values are instilled for life. But you guys want to call that child abuse
It is more like abuse to not instill these ethics at a young age because it is really just breeding future criminals.

Now sociopaths and he like... the post I made. Well I think God has a true sense of what each man starts with. I think he sort of grades on a curve. A man might start out abused and rejected yet some how make a decent life for himself. People might think he's a mean SOB, but no one will ever know how much he improved from where he started.

Then you have a man who starts with every advantage... he seems to be a much nicer person than the first man but has made zero progress with what was freely give to him. God will judge the first man as more moral no matter what the external behavior appears to be.

Why do I think I know God does this? Jesus taught it. The parable of the 10 talents.

Well I think God has a true sense of what each man starts with. I think he sort of grades on a curve. A man might start out abused and rejected yet some how make a decent life for himself. People might think he's a mean SOB, but no one will ever know how much he improved from where he started.

Yep! I came out of the rock scene in the 70's and cleaned up alot of my prior indiscretions as a newborn christian, only to find that it wasn't enough by the standards of people who had practiced good cleaning living their entire lives. imagine my disappointment, to not be accepted by my fellow believers because I still just wasn't "good enough." Thank goodness, this is not how Jesus deals with us or feels about our progress or failures.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Bible Morals are clear if you understand the whole Bible and don;t take things completely out of context to compare them. In primitive times there was the law - there was capital punishment by stoning.

Jesus changed that"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"

I know, this character said some good things. But the fact that apparent god-given morals change, show there are no inherent moral values. They can change over time depending on circumstances. In the bible, and in the real-world.

Which is why we should teach our kids the Bible before age 5 by which time most all values are instilled for life. But you guys want to call that child abuse
It is more like abuse to not instill these ethics at a young age because it is really just breeding future criminals.

Heh, of course you think that. Problem is, no evidence supports it. Stalin was brought up a Xian remember. So was that german dude. Same with most of western society in the last 1000 years. All those years of slaves and stuff.

It makes not an iota of difference. Good ethics are not dependent on your book. It can be a source for some people. However, just being obedient to a set of rules isn't really what I call moral behaviour. It's the difference between internal and external pressures. I feel internal motivations to act to my moral standards as closely as possible (I want to be moral, my empathy and emotions drive me to be), you might feel external (something else wants you to be moral).

Now sociopaths and he like... the post I made. Well I think God has a true sense of what each man starts with. I think he sort of grades on a curve. A man might start out abused and rejected yet some how make a decent life for himself. People might think he's a mean SOB, but no one will ever know how much he improved from where he started.

Interesting concept. So essentially Jesus/god uses a form of weighting system, in your mind. People who are born with genes predisposing to conditions that might make the exhibit immoral actions are assessed using a form of handicap system.

Quite subjective, then.

Originally posted by undo


You won't read that in any mainstream text, however, because the folks in charge of who gets their work read and acknowledged, also have made doubly sure the data presented doesn't step on any important toes. For example, for years it was pointed out to the UFOlogical community that most of christendom was against the revelation of ET or even the idea of it, which may have been true at one point but I think it's quickly becoming the complete opposite. I think it's the supposed ETs who don't want the data released yet. When they do, the crap that hits the fan will be quite a bit different than anyone expects, I have a feeling. This planet is being prepared for the culling ( the harvest ) on one side, and the rapture on the other. Lots of activity behind the scenes.

Mel will use one of his portuguese words or mention a study,, I may not tell him but I go look at that stuff all the time.

Undo Beloved,, we may not be ON the same page but that doesn't mean aren't reading the same book. In fact I was quite fascinated with so much of the things you were telling whammy yesterday,, I was reading about that stuff till the wee hours.

- Con

Originally posted by undo

Yep! I came out of the rock scene in the 70's and cleaned up alot of my prior indiscretions as a newborn christian, only to find that it wasn't enough by the standards of people who had practiced good cleaning living their entire lives. imagine my disappointment, to not be accepted by my fellow believers because I still just wasn't "good enough." Thank goodness, this is not how Jesus deals with us or feels about our progress or failures.

Ditto... you telling my story. I used to argue with street preachers who condemed rock music for a hobby. I met my first wife arguing with a street preacher Then I came to the end of myself... I started looking for God. I found that the true Christians will admit that they struggle with sin. They do not act "Holier than thou..." but actually try to encourage each other. It's a process to be come more Christ like and the playing field is not level.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
For someone who doesn't believe in God,, you sure have an intimate knowledge to suggest a better way for him to operate.

I have opinions. I try to understand the concept that some people put forward, so I work with that. Don't need to believe it.

I can only speculate Mel,, and that is most likely what Science will do

Not just speculation. We can actually observe the effects of developmental and organic brain damage on people's behaviours.

Some interesting studies showing how genes that control the expression of neurotransmitters in the brain can influence things like impulsivity and emotional tendencies. I think we'll be making some great strides in the understanding of mind and behaviour this century.

Anyway, yeah, science can say that love is probably a result of social bonding, beauty is an assessment of the value of an object/agent etc. But some things are not really the provence of science, and we don't really pretend they are. But if you want to understand the natural world, nowt better.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin


Heh, of course you think that. Problem is, no evidence supports it. Stalin was brought up a Xian remember. So was that german dude. Same with most of western society in the last 1000 years. All those years of slaves and stuff.

It makes not an iota of difference. Good ethics are not dependent on your book. It can be a source for some people. However, just being obedient to a set of rules isn't really what I call moral behaviour. It's the difference between internal and external pressures. I feel internal motivations to act to my moral standards as closely as possible (I want to be moral, my empathy and emotions drive me to be), you might feel external (something else wants you to be moral).

Then I guess that shoots that theory about raising our kids to know the bible being child abuse all to hell eh

- Con

Quite subjective, then.

Quite.
This is the scenario:

You have a perfect mathematical computation running a perfect program.

Everything is properly done and the sum is correct and the parts that equal the sum are correct.

Now you introduce into the equation a little algebraic unknown (this is free will).

Soon the computation will no longer be perfect and the program will malfunction.

However, the program has a safeguard in place that automatically discovers the value of the unknown factor and either rejects it or retains it. Nothing can be added to the computation that doesn't automatically equal the sum that runs the program. And since the unknown factor functions like a random number generator, any potential value may end up as the unknown factor.

Enter a new data set that can be generated if the unknown value needs it, and that also runs the program but allows for the unknown value by automatically calibrating it to fit the sum that runs the program, regardless. That's Jesus.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Then I guess that shoots that theory about raising our kids to know the bible being child abuse all to hell eh

Even my sprog has been raised to know the bible. He also knows other religious texts as well. The beauty of a rounded religious education. He has clearly stated he's an atheist. But I did my best to not influence his worldview. He essentially came to it himself.

Maybe the strict obedience, authoritarianism, and threats that some religious parents pass on to their children has an impact on their eventual character, producing threatening authoritarian people. Maybe genes and strict auhtoritarian bible environments can mix to produce some monsters. Maybe genes and strict authoriatrian secular environments can produce others.

Thus, rather than being good in itself to instill such bible-based (or any) morals, it's the way that you do it.

Originally posted by undo
That's Jesus.

Microsoft Jesus v1.1?

Anyway, does someone born a sociopath even have what we can consider free will? Like the parent with the tumour, did he really have a choice not to abuse kids? Do we have free will? Is it all an illusion?

I dunno, probably best not to go there, I don't have the answers...

[edit on 24-3-2008 by melatonin]