Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
burglar said:
Yet Aboriginals have proven "problem solving ability".
They require bushcraft to be the main aspect - and language to be, ... well, ... errrr, ... Aboriginal!!
Or Pictorial even!
Click to expand...
You've raised an interesting point. What "problem solving ability" do you refer to?

I don't know how it's measured but according to Richard Lynn, Australian Aboriginals (I'm assuming the "pure breeding" ones, not people like Noel Pearson) reportedly have the second lowest Average IQ in the world, = 60ish. The Kalahari bushmen have an average measured IQ of 50ish.

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris45 said:
I reject any attempt to soften the definition of an atheist.
Click to expand...

That is not your choice. We can define our atheism just as you define your Christianity. This is how the standard dictionary on my Mac defines it (as you can see, it encompasses both):

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

And as many have pointed out, atheists are the same as Christians in regards to god belief except that they have gone one god further. Most Christians do not believe (in fact deny that they exist) all other gods except their own. How hard line is that.

Christians believing in abiogenesis??? Who? Please quote your sources for that remarkable claim.

I just googled "Christians believing in abiogenesis" and this is the first hit I received.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7389698/

I can't understand how you would find that more shocking than to say some Christians believe in evolution. Many Christians (I think you too) accepts that evolution as understood by science is basically correct, but that the laws of nature that direct it were put in place by God. Additionally Adam and Eve were given a soul and they became the ancestors of modern Homo Sapiens. This is not how the Bible describes what happened, but that is how they rationalise the inconsistencies of what science knows now with the Biblical story. To go back one step before the evolution from the first organism and say God's laws of nature also led to a particular chemical and energy mix that allowed that first organism to be created from non-life (e.g. abiogenesis) is hardly any more accommodationist than accepting evolution.

The Big Bang is not an example of something coming from nothing, it's most likely to be an example of energy becoming matter and antimatter, a well known process that has been frequently observed. What has happened to the antimatter is a known unknown, as is dark matter, but they may be connected.
Click to expand...

I was responding to Pavilion who implied that "something from nothing" was what the Big Bang meant. I was also trying to illustrate the difficulty of using terms like "nothing" to describe what might have been the state prior to the Big Bang as it doesn't have meaning (at least how it is generally understood) without also having space. Personally, I have no idea what happened to cause the Big Bang and what may have preceded it, but follow with interest theories suggested by various scientists.

Many scientists are atheists, but there is a long list of significant scientists who are theists. It is certainly possible to be a Christian AND a scientist.
Click to expand...

In general I would agree with that as much of science does not infringe in the area of religion. However, science is also a particular methodology for understanding our universe and some Christians who are scientists are unwilling to use the scientific method when it comes to areas where science and religion meet. Prime examples of this are some of those connected to Ken Ham's "Answers in Genesis" organisation, who work on the basis that if observed evidence conflicts with the Bible, then you use the Bible. They may be great in many areas of science, but ignoring observed evidence in favour of Biblical text is not acting as a scientist. They are the extreme, but many scientists that do not have a conflict with their Christian beliefs are accommodationists - they have watered down their beliefs to the point that would have been called heretics just a couple of generations ago.

Most of your "intelligent atheists" are probably non-scientific artists, literologists, etc. who are quite ignorant of current scientific thinking and research. Mention multiverses and higher dimensions and they would probably adopt an arrogantly superior and disdainful posture and dismiss the suggestions as absolutely ridiculous, because they wouldn't know what you were talking about. I'm guessing their limited scientific thinking is so tightly confined within their current tiny box of well established laws and beliefs, they could not even entertain any serious scientific ideas the least bit "supernatural" (ie. not currently existing in nature, or subject to explanation according to current natural laws) and would dismiss any such ideas as pure fictional nonsense, just as H. G. Wells' "Heat-Ray" was.

It's interesting that many "intelligent atheists" believe that life probably exists elsewhere in our universe ... life as we know it, that is. No doubt they would exclude the possibility of life, NOT as we know it, existing in other universes.

In the light of the mind bending new scientific ideas and discoveries that have emerged recently, and are slowly but surely gaining traction in the scientific community, anyone, atheist or otherwise, who rules out the possibility of supernatural influences which cannot be explained by our current natural laws, is either an arrogant "intelligent idiot" or an ignorant, narrow minded fool.
Click to expand...

What a non-sequitor and there we go with the name calling again. You and Pav really seem angry people.
 
Chris45 said:
You've raised an interesting point. What "problem solving ability" do you refer to? ...
Click to expand...

Bushcraft !

Finding water in the outback!
Finding food in the outback!
Making shelter ... without Stratco or BHP steel products. lol ;)

When you qualify the debate with some sort of relevance of said "problem solving ability" to the real life problems that require solving, there is a huge shift.

If stupid irish git was lost in the outback or Kalahari he would not be denigrating Aboriginals or Bushmen.
 
Bellenuit, I agree you have the right to choose, and we have had this discussion before in the other thread.

Atheists are 100%, there is no God, just as Religion is 100%, there is a God.

Agnostic is the one in the middle.

I think a majority see it that way.

The connection between Science and Religion is Mathematics.

I think people tend to forget, that University was started by Religion.
 
At the same time Tink I don't think it matters who started what.
The only question is "what philosophy does he current evidence support - evolution or creation?" And the answer here is creation.

I think Bellenut is trying to say he is agnostic. Maybe he isn't clear on the distinction?
As Tink says there are three
1) belief in God
2) agnostic = unsure
3) atheism = belief that there is no god
 
Julia said:
4. What is the 'ism' for 'don't care'?
Click to expand...

They are all contained in the three.

I guess all three positions can not care.

Someone can loosely believe that there is a god but not care that much (for whatever reason).
More likely someone can be agnostic and not care.
Someone can also be an atheist and not care, although most often they seem to care for some reason.

So I wouldn't say there is a separate category for those who don't care because each would have one of the three positions anyway by default.
 
pavilion103 said:
At the same time Tink I don't think it matters who started what.
The only question is "what philosophy does he current evidence support - evolution or creation?" And the answer here is creation.

I think Bellenut is trying to say he is agnostic. Maybe he isn't clear on the distinction?
As Tink says there are three
1) belief in God
2) agnostic = unsure
3) atheism = belief that there is no god
Click to expand...

No Pav. I already told you what I am. I am an atheist who does not accept the evidence provided as sufficient proof for me to believe in a god. I am quite willing to accept that there might be a god if I see evidence that I deem sufficient.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

I think I have been abundantly clear. It seems to be you and others that have an understanding problem.

I noticed you haven't addressed my post from yesterday on some of your criticisms of evolution.
 
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist
Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge.

Atheists have a position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic because of their lack of belief in a personal god.
Click to expand...

I have just undertaken Jury Duty and was faced with the decision on whether I would swear on a bible, or make an affirmation instead. My position is best summed up by the definition of Agnostic as given above, so I decided to affirm, rather than make an oath to a God I don't believe in, on a book I regard as largely fiction. I noted that I was the only juror not to take the traditional oath. Naturally, there has to be at least one moron on each jury, and there certainly was on mine. Almost as soon as we were alone in the jury room I was attacked by another juror for not taking the religious oath, and my ability to tell the truth was called into question on the basis that if I didn't fear being punished by God if I lied, what possible reason was there for me to be absolutely truthful. More ranting along that vein ensued, with the upshot that in her opinion non-religious people shouldn't be allowed to be jurors as they couldn't be relied upon to be truthful. Now, I'm in no way suggesting that most religious people would agree with this idiot, as indeed none of the other jurors did. In the rather heated (at least on my part :D) conversation that followed, it transpired that almost half of the other jurors had no great faith in any God, were mostly undecided upon whether there was any such thing, and were largely not bothered either way. We all (apart from the moron) agreed that a belief in a God was certainly not required in order to be truthful, lead a good life or be an upstanding citizen, and in fact the majority agreed with me that if all that was keeping the moron from lying through her teeth was fear of retribution in this life or the next then it was probably she who shouldn't be allowed to be a juror.;)

What I find to be most interesting though, is that once the topic had been raised, three or four other jurors said if they'd actually given it any thought they should have "affirmed" rather than taken a religious oath - as the oath on a bible had less meaning for them. It was simply a natural inclination to follow the accepted and usual proceedings that applied for most of them - if I hadn't been the last juror to be "sworn in" there may indeed have been a stampede away from the bible. I wonder if it's time for a lot of our current legal practices to be updated, given that a belief in God is not the foregone conclusion that it was when our court system originated?
 
bellenuit said:
No Pav. I already told you what I am. I am an atheist who does not accept the evidence provided as sufficient proof for me to believe in a god. I am quite willing to accept that there might be a god if I see evidence that I deem sufficient. Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. I think I have been abundantly clear. It seems to be you and others that have an understanding problem. I noticed you haven't addressed my post from yesterday on some of your criticisms of evolution.
Click to expand...

An agnostic doesn't have to think that nothing can be known about God or the existence. He can think that with current evidence he is unsure which side of the argument to take.

Your comment is redundant and obvious. Everyone doesn't believe in certain things because of lack of evidence. This is obvious. Otherwise they would believe in them.

Which points? Aren't they all points previously addressed and answered in the other religion thread (many times!!!)
These arguments are just getting lazy. If you actually wanted answers a little bit of searching would see that all your points can be satisfactorily addressed.

I'm happy to discuss various points here and there if you genuinely can't find answers but it is clear to me that you are not an honest seeker of truth and throw out all these atheist arguments that I've heard and answered what feels like hundreds of times!!!
 
Swearing on the bible is absurd even if the whole population was Christian. It even says in the bible not to swear on 'this or that' just say the honest answer. And those who want to lie will anyway. Telling a lie because your hand is on the bible is no worse than just telling a lie anyway. Jesus was clear.
 
DocK said:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist


I have just undertaken Jury Duty and was faced with the decision on whether I would swear on a bible, or make an affirmation instead. My position is best summed up by the definition of Agnostic as given above, so I decided to affirm, rather than make an oath to a God I don't believe in, on a book I regard as largely fiction. I noted that I was the only juror not to take the traditional oath. Naturally, there has to be at least one moron on each jury, and there certainly was on mine. Almost as soon as we were alone in the jury room I was attacked by another juror for not taking the religious oath, and my ability to tell the truth was called into question on the basis that if I didn't fear being punished by God if I lied, what possible reason was there for me to be absolutely truthful. More ranting along that vein ensued, with the upshot that in her opinion non-religious people shouldn't be allowed to be jurors as they couldn't be relied upon to be truthful. Now, I'm in no way suggesting that most religious people would agree with this idiot, as indeed none of the other jurors did. In the rather heated (at least on my part :D) conversation that followed, it transpired that almost half of the other jurors had no great faith in any God, were mostly undecided upon whether there was any such thing, and were largely not bothered either way. We all (apart from the moron) agreed that a belief in a God was certainly not required in order to be truthful, lead a good life or be an upstanding citizen, and in fact the majority agreed with me that if all that was keeping the moron from lying through her teeth was fear of retribution in this life or the next then it was probably she who shouldn't be allowed to be a juror.;)

What I find to be most interesting though, is that once the topic had been raised, three or four other jurors said if they'd actually given it any thought they should have "affirmed" rather than taken a religious oath - as the oath on a bible had less meaning for them. It was simply a natural inclination to follow the accepted and usual proceedings that applied for most of them - if I hadn't been the last juror to be "sworn in" there may indeed have been a stampede away from the bible. I wonder if it's time for a lot of our current legal practices to be updated, given that a belief in God is not the foregone conclusion that it was when our court system originated?
Click to expand...


Bloody brilliant, good on ya Dock!!:xyxthumbs:xyxthumbs

This should be in a newspaper somewhere, how dare they!
 
bellenuit said:
... I think I have been abundantly clear ...
Click to expand...

I have looked it up before.
I have posted it elsewhere.

It was unexpectedly opaque and overlapped.

It is due to insufficient control on the internet.
Many issues are opaque and overlapped these days!

I used to look to Google to clarify Stuff.
Once, I could safely say "I googled it, it must be true".
Now black is the new white.

The online dictionaries contradict the written dictionaries.
For every definition that says you are an agnostic,
there is another which says you are an atheist.
Either way, you don't believe in God.

And I don't believe in God either!!

Clear?
 
DocK said:
I wonder if it's time for a lot of our current legal practices to be updated, given that a belief in God is not the foregone conclusion that it was when our court system originated?
Click to expand...
Yes, an update is overdue. It's a similar principle to people declaring themselves Christians or some sub branch of this on a Census form, or for that matter, people describing Australia as a Christian country.

You've just demonstrated how little thought most people give to traditional practices Swearing on a bible or any other religious tome is irrelevant.

How did the case go? Did the moron manage to apply any greater logic to the facts presented than he/she demonstrated about religion?
 
313.9 million Americans can't be wrong now can they?

usdollar.jpg
 
pavilion103 said:
Which points? Aren't they all points previously addressed and answered in the other religion thread (many times!!!)
These arguments are just getting lazy. If you actually wanted answers a little bit of searching would see that all your points can be satisfactorily addressed.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. The last time you raised similar issues (Macro Evolution, Irreducible Complexity, plus a few more) on one of these religious orientated threads, I replied to each and every point you raised with rebuttals. I waited for your response to my posts, but never saw them. It seems the same here. You raised objections to some claims of evolution, you are provided with a rebuttal, but you chose to move on saying you addressed the issue before.

Perhaps you could also add the DNA Fusion evidence I posted yesterday in your response.

Whether you regard me as atheist or agnostic is irrelevant. I know what I am. I have given you accepted definitions and I conform to one of those. But what is your point. What I am is irrelevant. I have posted articles that you can refute if you wish to or not, but I am done with discussing what label should be attached to me, unless I wish to offer that information.
 
Top