Atheism is DEAD!

[cybercoma]

these little insignificant fools [atheists] try to use science to destroy every mystery in the universe...

Is this really necessary? Where's the mods on this one?

[wyly]

I don't know but they may hold to cultural beliefs that may have roots in similarly minded conceptions.

Apparently the resident Orca whales, a species of dolphin, that live around Puget Sound and Georgia Straight and Gulf Islands don't or won't eat anything but chinook salmon. I'm not aware of any biological reason why they couldn't eat other relatively abundant salmon but they don't, seemingly by choice which suggests a social or cultural reason is the cause. A researcher I know reported that even peanut-heads, as starving orca are called, have been observed literally spitting out coho salmon. I can't help but wonder if this is the result of a dietary taboo, perhaps one that stems from a belief that might be associated with a deity belief. I also have to wonder if they're as intelligent as we think because they risk extinction due to disappearing chinook if they don't adapt.

Perhaps only the heretic blasphemer orca that switch to halibut or pink salmon will survive and pass their genes onto to the future. Apparently resident orca that call Johnstone Straight home have been observed eating seals even though they were commonly once thought to also be strict salmon eaters. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

fishing wolves only eat the heads of salmon they catch, speculation is they avoid parasites by doing so...so orca's probably have good reason for eating what they do and what they do not...

[wyly]

I wonder if the Dolphins can conceive of a deity? There is quite a bit being made of dolphins communicating through a language of sound. Or speech if you prefer.

I wonder if H. Erectus, if they didn't have basic speech, had a sophisticted gestural or sign language that they used to convey abstract concepts.

I wonder if H. Erectus made shrines and buried their dead in organic materials that have completely disappeared over time.

The point is that your view is completely anthropocentric and unless your real name is Doctor Doolittle, I doubt you can speak on the behalf of the animals nor whether hominids could/can think in the abstract which even chimps and baboons can. Your problem is you expect the evidence from early man to mimic the present evidence of deity worship in modern humans when technically it should be the other way around. As if H. Erectus needed to assemble stone shrines despite a more abundant and easily worked material was available - wood.

As for frontal lobe requirements, well I am still waiting for you to post some conclusive link or cite something other than your opinion that shows that only deities can be conceived of with the modern human brain.

a lack of evidence does not make your case...no graves, no grave goods, no artifacts, no language = no advanced thought processes(under developed brain), until those criteria are met there is no possiblity of relgion...which is pretty much how religion works, faith without any need for evidence...

[Shwa]

a lack of evidence does not make your case...no graves, no grave goods, no artifacts, no language = no advanced thought processes(under developed brain), until those criteria are met there is no possiblity of relgion...which is pretty much how religion works, faith without any need for evidence...

atheism predates all religions hands down...

You're right, sort of. But since we have already established your earlier comment to be completely wrong, any further discussion along this line of enquiry would be overkill.

[ToadBrother]

Is this really necessary? Where's the mods on this one?

I think it admirably shows the posters sheer ignorance and, as is so often attached to ignorance, fear. At any rate, atheism is not science, science is not atheism, and the poster is a moron.

[GostHacked]

I think it admirably shows the posters sheer ignorance and, as is so often attached to ignorance, fear. At any rate, atheism is not science, science is not atheism, and the poster is a moron.

I agree with this 100%. He posted, and ran.

[wyly]

You're right, sort of. But since we have already established your earlier comment to be completely wrong, any further discussion along this line of enquiry would be overkill.

who is this "we" you speak of that established anything I've posted as wrong? it certainly isn't you...atheism predates religion as religion requires a mental development to conceive of it that did not exist until Neanderthals...no other animal before Neanderthal and none other than Sapien has shown any concept of religion...

[bush_cheney2004]

...no other animal before Neanderthal and none other than Sapien has shown any concept of religion...

Maybe...maybe not. The multiple levels of arrogance in your assumptions surely mean you are wrong, from elephants to E.T.

Belief systems and associated behaviors come in many shapes and sizes, and are not specifically the attributes of man, even when man tries to limit the definition for his own religious or anthropological purposes (e.g. "animals don't have souls")

[Shwa]

who is this "we" you speak of that established anything I've posted as wrong? it certainly isn't you...atheism predates religion as religion requires a mental development to conceive of it that did not exist until Neanderthals...no other animal before Neanderthal and none other than Sapien has shown any concept of religion...

The "we" is the rest of the rational posters that discussed the issue at length. Were you not reading? Go back a bunch of pages. Heck you couldn't even post a decent cite that establishes that only human (oh, and now Neanderthal) frontal lobe development is required for the development of religion. You're just guessing and anthropocentrically at that.

Like I said, "overkill."

[GostHacked]

The "we" is the rest of the rational posters that discussed the issue at length. Were you not reading? Go back a bunch of pages. Heck you couldn't even post a decent cite that establishes that only human (oh, and now Neanderthal) frontal lobe development is required for the development of religion. You're just guessing and anthropocentrically at that.

Like I said, "overkill."

This is comming from a person who tried to prove a bible story as fact, then decided that accuracy was not needed.

Your guess is as good as his at the moment. Also, you use 'anthropo*.*' quite a bit. What do you know about it? Wait... that's for another thread.

[charter.rights]

This is comming from a person who tried to prove a bible story as fact, then decided that accuracy was not needed.

Your guess is as good as his at the moment. Also, you use 'anthropo*.*' quite a bit. What do you know about it? Wait... that's for another thread.

This from someone who didn't get the idea that stories - even mythical ones - often hold more science than test tube opinions spawned from your own religious bias.

I got it. He wasn't trying to show the Bible as fact. He was following the facts that were available to us. And BTW once we recognized the facts then we can apply some commonality from other stories to sort out what may or not have standing.

You didn't get that because your religious fanaticism got in the way.

Edited December 29, 2009 by charter.rights

[cybercoma]

a lack of evidence does not make your case...no graves, no grave goods, no artifacts, no language = no advanced thought processes(under developed brain), until those criteria are met there is no possiblity of relgion...which is pretty much how religion works, faith without any need for evidence...

So, a species pretty much has to be able to make shit up before it can have religion? Is that what you're saying?

[bush_cheney2004]

So, a species pretty much has to be able to make shit up before it can have religion? Is that what you're saying?

Yep....define religion in your own image and then claim that no other species past or present can do it. Marvelous!

[wyly]

So, a species pretty much has to be able to make shit up before it can have religion? Is that what you're saying?

in communication(ASL) a with close relative of ours the Gorilla it had no concept of god...it could tell a lie but something as abstract as god was beyond it's ability...it's that same ability that allows us to understand zero and negative numbers...

and as of now there is no evidence of any animal other than Neanderthals and Sapiens understanding that concept...speculation other animals have that ability has no value because it's wishful thinking without evidence...

[wyly]

The "we" is the rest of the rational posters that discussed the issue at length. Were you not reading? Go back a bunch of pages. Heck you couldn't even post a decent cite that establishes that only human (oh, and now Neanderthal) frontal lobe development is required for the development of religion. You're just guessing and anthropocentrically at that.

Like I said, "overkill."

I gave you archeological evidence, you gave nothing other than your opinion..

[GostHacked]

This from someone who didn't get the idea that stories - even mythical ones - often hold more science than test tube opinions spawned from your own religious bias.

I got it. He wasn't trying to show the Bible as fact. He was following the facts that were available to us. And BTW once we recognized the facts then we can apply some commonality from other stories to sort out what may or not have standing.

You didn't get that because your religious fanaticism got in the way.

You again? You still posting? Dayum. Anyways. The Lazarus story failed. So he end up using a non bible story to try to prove mythical stories as scientifically correct. Which just does not fit in with the rest of the thread. The title of the thread was The Bible and Science. Not Mythical stories and Science. You can start your own thread on it though. You will have better luck with Mythology and Science compared to the Bible and Science.

Actually it was logic that got in the way of my religious fanaticism. Also I think I'd have to be religious in some fashion in order to be fanatical about it. Don't you think?

Edited December 29, 2009 by GostHacked

[charter.rights]

You again? You still posting? Dayum. Anyways. The Lazarus story failed. So he end up using a non bible story to try to prove mythical stories as scientifically correct. Which just does not fit in with the rest of the thread. The title of the thread was The Bible and Science. Not Mythical stories and Science. You can start your own thread on it though. You will have better luck with Mythology and Science compared to the Bible and Science.

Actually it was logic that got in the way of my religious fanaticism. Also I think I'd have to be religious in some fashion in order to be fanatical about it. Don't you think?

Since when did YOU get to decide how a thread evolves? Nonsense. You can't keep up so you go spastic instead.

[GostHacked]

Since when did YOU get to decide how a thread evolves? Nonsense. You can't keep up so you go spastic instead.

I don't decide, forum rules do. I can't keep up to the logic behind the logic that was presented then when the poster realized he was at a dead end, decided it was not important to the overall statement he was trying to make, which kind of jumped the shark if you will.

And in the end, I supported Shwa's theory about mythology having some merit of truth in the stories by looking at anthropological evidence. Or did you forget that?

Also, Atheism is not dead !!!! Carry on.

Edited December 29, 2009 by GostHacked

[Shwa]

This is comming from a person who tried to prove a bible story as fact, then decided that accuracy was not needed.

The only thing I tried to "prove" was that a "bible story" could be used as input into the understanding of the myth making structures of a culture from a long, long time ago. Obviously that point was well over your head. That's not my problem.

Your guess is as good as his at the moment.

Not anymore than anyone asserting anything without any valid reason for doing so or the kahones to back it up. wyly is wholly reluctant to post any reference to frontal lobe development in humans being the deciding factor in religion. The ball is in his court, not mine.

Also, you use 'anthropo*.*' quite a bit. What do you know about it? Wait... that's for another thread.

There is a vast difference between anthropology and anthropocentrism. If you can't comprehend that, then perhaps you should post at the kiddie board and let the adults continue discussions here. Come back when you have something useful to add. And better manners.

[Shwa]

I gave you archeological evidence, you gave nothing other than your opinion..

Not quite. All you have done is drawn an anthropocentric opinion based upon scant fossil material evidence. That will hardly do. According to the reasoning you have presented here, the paleo-indian people that occupied the Simcoe highlands 9kya had no language, no religion, no culture except that which supported a life that was nasty, brutish and short. Because, you know, on some of those camps all they found were broken points, some stone flakes and the remains of a hearth.

But even Jane Goodall could recognize a spiritual component among chimpanzees. Oh wait, what does Jane Goodall know? And I am still waiting for your "evidence" that only human (and now Neanderthal) frontal lobe development is a requirement for the conception of a deity. Guess I will be waiting a long time for that won't I?

[GostHacked]

The only thing I tried to "prove" was that a "bible story" could be used as input into the understanding of the myth making structures of a culture from a long, long time ago. Obviously that point was well over your head. That's not my problem.

Yeah, 6+ pages on Lazarus that came to a dead end.

Not anymore than anyone asserting anything without any valid reason for doing so or the kahones to back it up. wyly is wholly

There is a vast difference between anthropology and anthropocentrism. If you can't comprehend that, then perhaps you should post at the kiddie board and let the adults continue discussions here. Come back when you have something useful to add. And better manners.

I don't claim to know all. That would be pretty stupid of me. And come on, you could not back your Lazarus claim so you moved on to something else. And if you want to keep calling me a kid or a child with bad manners, I won't lose sleep over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism

nthropocentrism (from Greek: ἄνθρωπος, anthropos, "human being"; and κέντρον, kentron, "center") is the belief that humans must be considered at the center of, and above any other aspect of, reality.[1] This concept is sometimes known as humanocentrism or human supremacy. It is especially strong in certain religious cultures, such as the common Protestant Christian translation of Genesis 1:26, which is taken to state that God gave man dominion over all other earthly creatures.[2] The current Latin Vulgate, the official Bible of the Catholic Christian church, as well as St. Jerome's original, lack this anthropocentric nature, instead saying that God holds man responsible for the care and fate of all earthly creatures.[3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

Anthropology is the holistic, global, comparative study of humans. It is the comprehensive study of human beings and of their interactions with each other and the environment. The term "anthropology", pronounced /ænθrɵˈpɒlədʒi/, is from the Greek ἄνθρωπος, anthrōpos, "human", and -λογία, -logia, "discourse" and was first used in English in 1593.[1]

It seems that one is a scientific approach and the other one is a religious approach.

In the end you and I are both agree that Atheism is not dead.

Edited December 29, 2009 by GostHacked

[charter.rights]

Also, Atheism is not dead !!!!

I agree. It is alive and well in the minds and hearts of those that believe in Atheism religiously.

[GostHacked]

I agree. It is alive and well in the minds and hearts of those that believe in Atheism religiously.

I simply don't understand how people can equate a lack of belief as a religious belief when it is not religious in the first place. More or less it is anti-religion. I see that there is a difference. But most who are religious in some fashion see Atheism as religious, and as a threat for whatever reason. I don't see it as religious, only because I am not religious myself. But I can tell the difference of those who are to those who are not. Maybe I am unique in my views. But I, for one, am hardly religious about it.

Atheists don't have a church. Atheists don't gather at a specific place every week. There are not commandments or tenants of Atheism. The lack of proof in a god is where atheism comes from.

[bloodyminded]

I simply don't understand how people can equate a lack of belief as a religious belief when it is not religious in the first place. More or less it is anti-religion. I see that there is a difference. But most who are religious in some fashion see Atheism as religious, and as a threat for whatever reason. I don't see it as religious, only because I am not religious myself. But I can tell the difference of those who are to those who are not. Maybe I am unique in my views. But I, for one, am hardly religious about it.

Atheists don't have a church. Atheists don't gather at a specific place every week. There are not commandments or tenants of Atheism. The lack of proof in a god is where atheism comes from.

I agree. I will even cocnede that there exists a species of atheist who has what we might term "faith" in their atheism. It's conceivable. But that's not most of them; and it's certainly not the fault of atheists like myself. I am not some sort of political spokesperson for atheists.

But the critics of atheism (or I should say the bewildered critics of atheists) seem to have a large misconception about it generally.

[Shwa]

And come on, you could not back your Lazarus claim so you moved on to something else

Then you obviously missed page 25 and ToadBrother's comments on religion and the development of the early church? Heck, do I have to do your homework for you too? Sheesh...

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14190&st=360

I moved on to "something else" to illustrate my point within a less contentious context which was elaborated on with the discussion of the Three Sisters story. Or did you miss that part too? Good grief...