My journey into atheism and theories on life

[Hồng Thất Công]

It's called a discussion for me not an argument.  

An argument would imply I care, which I really don't. The most I care about it, is that I can't sleep so I need something to pass the time.

Evolution, creation, mutation, spontaneous adaptation......... In the end I'll be dead long before it matters.

Why are you here?  You have a job to do here.  

 

[hailrazer]

Good grief. This discussion is easy. I'm not getting involved in that one. Yikes . Lol

 

[Exophase]

Conjecture and guessing.

Scientists have not "proven" that any of this has happened. it is a lot of theory and hypothesis.  And it has not been duplicated in real life lab tests.

I'm not saying it didn't or doesn't happen that way. I'm just saying it's laughable to claim it as fact.

It's not just a hypothesis, it's supported by observations and has been able to predict more observations. The fossil record contains an actual sampling of evolutionary history, actually showing how organisms changed over time and location. Connections in the fossil record are then backed up by connections in the genetic record.

I recommend anyone who has significant doubts about evolution read the Talk Origins FAQ. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

 

[Klumpen]

Gosh, I am so happy to live in a mostly secular state

and people here even think that it is evident, that we do not live on a discworld. Awesome!

 

[Granitehead]

Gosh, I am so happy to live in a mostly secular state.

Yeah, me too.Though I guess I live in one of the worst countries in Europe, it's pretty close after America.

I really need to emigrate at some time. Don't like the weather and the mountains either.

I just wonder how they do that in America. In theory, as far as I know, they have school which teaches basic subjects such as biology, physics and geography. But on the other hand the general public doesn't seem to know about stuff which is usually taught in those subjects (within compulsory education).

 

[Klumpen]

I just wonder how they do that in America. In theory, as far as I know, they have school which teaches basic subjects such as biology, physics and geography. But on the other hand the general public doesn't seem to know about stuff which is usually taught in those subjects (within compulsory education).

Creationism is forced upon schools in some states the same way as the discworld theory was some more time ago...

Evolution is a real taboo in some areas. No education free from religion there, ironically just like in some/most places in the middle east.

 

[TrashyMG]

Gosh, I am so happy to live in a mostly secular state

and people here even think that it is evident, that we do not live on a discworld. Awesome!

Yeah me too:

Also interesting fact:


http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages/business-tools/craft-brewing-statistics/breweries-per-capita

 

[Klumpen]

Vermont would be the place to go then if I'd be stranded in 'murica,

well, I'd go to Canada then anyway and it's near. ^^

BTW: In Germany we got the same thing, the further you go north, the more secular people you'll find,

the south is extremely Christian too here. I wonder why.

 

[Granitehead]

Creationism is forced upon schools in some states the same way as the discworld theory was some more time ago...

Evolution is a real taboo in some areas. No education free from religion there, ironically just like in some/most places in the middle east.

Yeah, I guess that must be the reason. It's just almost unimaginable to me. And we complain because of crucifixes hanging in class rooms, which don't even really influence what is taught.
It's a kind of shallow comfort to know that other people have it much worse, though.

"The construction of <certain religious building> is prohibited."

Guess from which constitution that was taken from?

(Edit: Yes, I like to quote that all the time. Together with the name of the political party who made that law. Usually people then understand my dislike of that party. By the way their most recent bull shit is restricting cross country freedom of movement even while they know this will lead to repercussions from the surrounding countries)

 

[hailrazer]

Conjecture and guessing. Scientists have not "proven" that any of this has happened. it is a lot of theory and hypothesis.  And it has not been duplicated in real life lab tests. I'm not saying it didn't or doesn't happen that way. I'm just saying it's laughable to claim it as fact.

It's not just a hypothesis, it's supported by observations and has been able to predict more observations. The fossil record contains an actual sampling of evolutionary history, actually showing how organisms changed over time and location. Connections in the fossil record are then backed up by connections in the genetic record.I recommend anyone who has significant doubts about evolution read the Talk Origins FAQ. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

I guess the real problem is actually the definition of evolution. It seems we are talking about 2 different things.


But since the theory of evolution changes daily (as it should since that is how science works , new discoveries or views change current belief) it is incredibly difficult to define it precisely.


But that is the way with all things. That's the reason we continue to learn and advance, because we challenge everything and demand more and more proof.


I won't continue to discuss it though. It's a pointless discussion really. The truth of the matter is that even with all we know we really know next to nothing about life , it's origins and where it's headed.

 

[Klumpen]

@T4b: I may have to add, that the north here is getting more and more Islamized (which is natural, because it's an extremely missionary religion per book) and although the party you mean indeed is quite bollocks (you mean these evangelical guys, right? I don't know Swiss politics too well), maybe restriction of Islam is for your own good. After living in Berlin between masses of muslims for some decades and reading the Quran (mean stuff), I'd say you are better off this way now.

 

[Granitehead]

@T4b: I may have to add, that the north here is getting more and more Islamized (which is natural, because it's an extremely missionary religion per book) and although the party you mean indeed is quite bollocks (you mean these hardcore Christian guys, right?), maybe restriction of Islam is for your own good, after living in Berlin for some decades and reading the Quran (mean stuff), I'd say you are better off this way now.

Yeah, I dislike Islam like I dislike Christianity. Probably Islam is even worse. Though I still need to read the Bible and the Quran (you don't happen to be able to recommend good editions which don't support their religion of origin financially, are cheap and are good for critical reading?). But that's no reason to go down to their level unless they really threaten our freedom. I think the right way to fight against religion (I think religion as we know it today needs to be fought and replaced with actual philosophy) is with good, neutral, mandatory education and religious freedom. That way the religions don't have as good an excuse to fight back drastically (if they are cornered, I think most religious people are really dangerous), while at the same time their support base shrinks.
That stupid party I mentioned isn't even Christian, they are just plain stupid. They mix the interests of the rich with nationalism. The Christian party is rather okay in comparison. It's also Switzerland I'm talking about, not Germany, if that's where you guessed wrong. At least here around the border even young politically disinterested Germans knew about that party's most recent piece of bullshit the morning after it happened, so maybe you've heard it too even up in the north?

 

[WizardStan]

I guess the real problem is actually the definition of evolution. It seems we are talking about 2 different things

We're using the correct definition, you're using the incorrect one.

But since the theory of evolution changes daily (as it should since that is how science works , new discoveries or views change current belief) it is incredibly difficult to define it precisely.

Don't confuse mechanism with definition. Evolution means change over time, specifically in this case it means biological organisms that change slowly over time so that what they are now is different from what they were before. This definition will not change, not so long as scientists want to continue being able to communicate with each other and understanding past experiments. The mechanisms of evolution have changed slightly since the original but the definition never has.Also "daily" is a bit of an exaggeration, I don't think the theory has actually changed in decades. It's a pretty solid theory.

 

[Klumpen]

@T4b: I know that you meant Switzerland, that's why I corrected my post after writing it, too late as it seems.

..and no, we do not hear anything about down there up in the northeast here, everything I know about Switzerland came either from Andreas Thiel (comedian) or my Boss, who is Swiss as well but went to Berlin about 20 years ago.

Religion and philosophy are basically the same (religere = to rely on former knowledge/knowledge of former people) and I am quite fond of some religions that are much older than the modern monotheisms, but unfortunately only the rude ones with some magic and angry gods seem to stay popular.

You do not have to buy a Quran like I did, there is a translation online too:

http://www.koransuren.de/

Not the best one, but it's ok.

Be sure to check out:

"Sūra 2, Āya 190-193"

"Sūra 2, Āya 216-217"

"Sūra 2, Āya 223"

"Sūra 3, Āya 86-91"

"Sūra 4, Āya 34"

"Sūra 4, Āya 89"

"Sūra 5, Āya 38"

"Sūra 8, Āya 12"

"Sūra 8, Āya 17"

"Sūra 9, Āya 5"

"Sūra 9, Āya 14"

"Sūra 9, Āya 29"

"Sūra 9, Āya 111"

"Sūra 9, Āya 113"

"Sūra 16, Āya 10"

"Sūra 17, Āya 33"

"Sūra 24, Āya 2"

"Sūra 24, Āya 62"

"Sūra 33, Āya 61"

"Sūra 40, Āya 10"

"Sūra 41, Āya 24"

"Sūra 44, Āya 16"

"Sūra 47, Āya 4"

"Sūra 48, Āya 20"

"Sūra 48, Āya 29"

"Sūra 60, Āya 1"

"Sūra 61, Āya 4"

"Sūra 61, Āya 9"

"Sūra 98, Āya 6"

 

[Null]

 Though I still need to read the Bible and the Quran (you don't happen to be able to recommend good editions which don't support their religion of origin financially, are cheap and are good for critical reading?).

There's the Gideon bible, you can get free copies from hotel rooms. Not sure how good it is on the critical reading front though.

 

[Klumpen]

 Though I still need to read the Bible and the Quran (you don't happen to be able to recommend good editions which don't support their religion of origin financially, are cheap and are good for critical reading?).

There's the Gideon bible, you can get free copies from hotel rooms. Not sure how good it is on the critical reading front though.

Forget this one.

I've read and compared several translations of the bible in school and in university, don't know anymore which ones were "good" though, because these ancient aramaic languages are so primitive, that you cannot translate them well anyway. The old testament is some very mean stuff too, but Quran has more direct advice for proper slaughter with lots of splatter and you are ordered to rape and beat the shit out of your wife if she doesn't do as she is told.

I still wonder, why these are not censored, it's worse stuff than the actually banned "Mein Kampf". I hate violent ideologies.

 

[Granitehead]

Religion and philosophy are basically the same (religere = to rely on former knowledge/knowledge of former people) and I am quite fond of some religions that are much older than the modern monotheisms, but unfortunately only the rude ones with some magic and gods seem to stay popular.

Now I'm not sure whether this conforms with the actual definitions, but for me a religion implies blind faith while a philosophy implies critical thinking and doesn't assume the results but only some rather basic things.There are certainly religions with content which isn't bad. But (by my definition) there is still baseless faith included (or it is actually a philosophy and not a religion) which is a bad out of principle.

Yes, I know about the translating problem. I wondered whether there might be an edition which tries to include all possible meanings when there are several. Would of course be much longer than a standard bible.

I guess there must be some translations of the Bible/Quran which are recommended by the respective religious leaders themselves? Then one should probably just read those and judge them by those versions.

 

[hailrazer]

@Wizard


How about not being condescending? As I mentioned in another thread , it is quite tiresome to read thread after thread where you always think you're right about everything.


I am not wrong. Look up evolution definitions online and you will find dozens of differing definitions ranging from minute changes in a organism to genetic mutations and dna restructuring. And among scientists it's a joke if you think they agree on anything.


And yes it has changed drastically. 25 years ago it was taught very different than it is taught to my teenagers today. Schoolbooks are changes and shuffled very often because of the changes. So maybe daily is an exaggeration but it changes often.


That's my opinion of what I've seen in my lifetime.

 

[Klumpen]

Religion and philosophy are basically the same (religere = to rely on former knowledge/knowledge of former people) and I am quite fond of some religions that are much older than the modern monotheisms, but unfortunately only the rude ones with some magic and gods seem to stay popular.

Now I'm not sure whether this conforms with the actual definitions, but for me a religion implies blind faith while a philosophy implies critical thinking and doesn't assume the results but only some rather basic things.
There are certainly religions with content which isn't bad. But (by my definition) there is still baseless faith included (or it is actually a philosophy and not a religion) which is a bad out of principle.

My definition comes stricly from Latin, I know that most people define it in a different way.

You can take everything Nietzsche wrote as absolute truth too and it immediately becomes a religion in the current definition,

while you can see old daoistic wisdom as a philosophy. It all depends on the individual, but human groups/packs tend to set some binding truths in stone in order to keep the community together, you can see how Marx was and still is used... Some people act like religious ones with TV channels like RTL or Fox as their preachers. They simply believe everything coming from that source, no matter how wrong it may be.

Yes, I know about the translating problem. I wondered whether there might be an edition which tries to include all possible meanings when there are several. Would of course be much longer than a standard bible.

I guess there must be some translations of the Bible/Quran which are recommended by the respective religious leaders themselves? Then one should probably just read those and judge them by those versions.

You want to read a bible with all possible translations? You would never finish it.

I've seen a very simple sentence having about 5 quite different meanings (she basically just came down from her ride, but the context was a bit different every time).

Imagine an (extremely boring and awful) book 5 times or more as large as a normal bible. Have fun!

You should rather read Daodejing (about 400 BC), Dhammapada (383 BC) and Lun-Yü (about 500 BC) instead, there is way more wisdom in these short texts, than in any large monotheistic brick ever written some centuries or even a millenium later, like Quran (632 AD).

Meditations from Marc Aurel (second century AD) is great too.

 

[WizardStan]

I am not wrong.

Of course not, you're using your definition. It's just a different one from what science is using.