Atheism is DEAD!

[wyly]

I don't do links... just not that computer savy and plus the net has just about everything to safisfy and enforce just about anybodies opinion or agenda. So I don't bother. What I can tell you is that I saw what appeared to be a good documentary where they clearly showed a set of human foot prints that were along side of a prehistoric reptile.

creationist myth... any archeologist that made such a discovery would have incredible fame and fortune...its just not true...

Look at those old fish thought to have been extinct for a million years..then they find a dead one in the flesh and now a few live ones have been documented on film.

a popular misconception evolution does not stop, those fish (Coelacanths)are not the same as the fossil examples, fossils closely resemble living species but they are not the same species...just as todays sharks are not the same as those of a hundred million years ago...

I will be blunt with you...we may be related to all live forms because we are life...but I was never an ape...I may have two eyes and four appendages and a lateral line running along my scrotum..but I am not a monkey...Why is it that your type so desperately want to be monkeys? Is it so you can continue with your monkey buisness?

why is it that your type desperately want to deny science what do you gain by self delusion...

[wyly]

Atheists are also religious fanatics.

atheism is a religion? how is nothing a belief, nothing is zero-zilch-nada-zip...there is nothing in which to believe...

All of our problems come from people who do not think for themselves who are then mobilized by the master fanatics to simply get rid of all intelligent resistance. Look at our foolish government who gave Henry Morgantaler the Order Of Canada... when Henry himself confessed he pushed abortion rights along in order to make sure that no more Nazis were born. "Unwanted children become concentration camp guards" YES the delluded old fool said that. Where are the twenty or so million people who should be adults by now - that should have been born - that may have carried great gifts to improve the lot of the nation? We now have an intelligence shortage - Atheists for the most part approve of this reverse eugenics..that would make atheists fools - and those nuts ...that screamed pro-life all those years should have been having children instead of protesting - they should have countered this warped and mislead genocide...now we have people like Obama - Cheney - Harper - who are second rate ruling the roost. Not to mention the banksters who never aborted their children nor encouraged it.

ok now you're losing it....from atheisim to Jewish MDs to Obama, Cheney and Harper...it's time for you to s l o w l y back away from the keyboard....

[jbg]

There has been a recent discovery that human fossil remains that are a million years old are not different than todays human skeletal structures. About 25 years ago they peeled back a layer of shale to fine prehistoric foot prints of huge creatures and along those were perfect what we would call modern human prints. No one wants to discuss this stuff.

Recent?

Try I remember watching a Dr. Gish, an alleged "scientist" from Arkansas, in a 1982 TV show, claiming this. The modern-day person making the footprint was later identified.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I don't do links... just not that computer savy and plus the net has just about everything to safisfy and enforce just about anybodies opinion or agenda. So I don't bother.

Youève basically admited to lying there.

What I can tell you is that I saw what appeared to be a good documentary where they clearly showed a set of human foot prints that were along side of a prehistoric reptile.

So what? They are in the same place that doesn't prove they were made at the same time.

Look at those old fish thought to have been extinct for a million years..then they find a dead one in the flesh and now a few live ones have been documented on film.

It was the Genus they thought was extinct this is a new species.

I will be blunt with you...we may be related to all live forms because we are life...but I was never an ape...

You are an ape.

I may have two eyes and four appendages and a lateral line running along my scrotum..but I am not a monkey...

You are a monkey.

Why is it that your type so desperately want to be monkeys? Is it so you can continue with your monkey buisness?

Sorry that I can accept what I am.

Just to say one more thing on this topic. Religious fanatics are fanatics. Atheists are also religious fanatics.

You clearly don't know what a religion is.

All of our problems come from people who do not think for themselves who are then mobilized by the master fanatics to simply get rid of all intelligent resistance. Look at our foolish government who gave Henry Morgantaler the Order Of Canada... when Henry himself confessed he pushed abortion rights along in order to make sure that no more Nazis were born. "Unwanted children become concentration camp guards" YES the delluded old fool said that. Where are the twenty or so million people who should be adults by now - that should have been born - that may have carried great gifts to improve the lot of the nation? We now have an intelligence shortage - Atheists for the most part approve of this reverse eugenics..that would make atheists fools - and those nuts ...that screamed pro-life all those years should have been having children instead of protesting - they should have countered this warped and mislead genocide...now we have people like Obama - Cheney - Harper - who are second rate ruling the roost. Not to mention the banksters who never aborted their children nor encouraged it.

Not sure how your post is relevant in any way, but atheists on average are smarter than the religous, commit less crimes to. Really not sure how abortion is "reverse eugenics" and you are harshly over generalizing in saying all atheists support abortion rights.

What is most amusing is that the atheists assume that I am some sort of religious person and they attack me with their full vigor - until they figure out that I am just like them - not religious at all - I do believe in goodness and in the thing we refere to as God - and God is not a religion.

That you believe in God means you are not like an atheist.

Edited December 30, 2009 by TrueMetis

[bloodyminded]

I will be blunt with you...we may be related to all live forms because we are life...but I was never an ape...I may have two eyes and four appendages and a lateral line running along my scrotum..but I am not a monkey...Why is it that your type so desperately want to be monkeys? Is it so you can continue with your monkey buisness?

Oleg, how cn you claim with a straight face that you're not an ape?

A human being is by definition an ape.

If you merely look at an ape, you will intuitively know you are one. But ok, that's insufficient proof--and I agree. So look into this heretical, anti-religious, left-wing methodology we have constructed called "biology."

There is not a debate that you are an ape. That this could even be a controversial notion exposes how immersed in darkness we still are as people (that is, in other words, apes).

[Shwa]

As usually TB you present several compelling points!

The issue isn't really whether certain emotional responses can be found in our relatives, it's when those emotional responses got wrapped in more complex symbolic notions.

Would dance be included as complex symbolic notions? How about play? Neither can be proven through the examination of scant material remains, but can they be inferred by an examination of known ancient examples and modern primate behavior. (Actually - believe it or not - I know someone who is taking a PhD in dance complete with the anthropology of dance, etc. Who knew? I didn't...) Chimps both dance and play.

what we seem to have demonstrated is that they are at best capable of proto-language, there's little evidence of syntax or complex grammar, which is a clear "line in the sand", if you will, between other apes and ourselves...There seems to be upper limit to the kinds of concepts they can express and in the degree of complexity of the kind of language they are taught.

This is contentious at best since most of what we know was done in a lab and we are trying to teach them one of our languages instead of trying to learn one of theirs. Sort of like taking a Tapirape tribesman from the Amazon onto the space station and teaching them Russian. There are going to be gaps in their expressions. And it could be a simple matter of context.

Why Goodall's research is such a valuable means is the field data. I am not sure if there is current research to nail down any chimpanzee language in the context of their habitual environment (like dialect), where - if there were any present - their symbols have meaning to them. While we can admire our modern syntax and complex grammar, we also have to acknowledge that our form of language is unique - it could be that chimps and other apes use a complex combination of gesture, sound and environmental context to express meanings.

[GostHacked]

What is most amusing is that the atheists assume that I am some sort of religious person and they attack me with their full vigor - until they figure out that I am just like them - not religious at all - I do believe in goodness and in the thing we refere to as God - and God is not a religion.

You are one of the most pi-polar or schizophrenic posters I have ever witnessed. One minute you trash the Atheists and talk about we need more God in our lives, then you make this kind of post.

[Shwa]

If we use that as a metric, then there is little evidence of such behavior in humans (H. sapiens or Neanderthals) prior to approx 120,000 years ago.

A few years ago I would be inclined to agree, but I am not longer certain of that:

OriginsNet run by James Harrod. Some of his stuff is a little 'out there' but very, very interesting nonetheless. Can't fault his credentials.

The main point being is when does a high level of craftmanship become 'art' or is that merely in the eye of the beholder or utility?

One thing that we must be careful of is not ignoring the environmental context of those ancient hominids when examining the material remains. The better portion of their lifeway did not make it to fossil record of course, but nowadays modern archaeology and its paleo- branch have become very interested in those paleo environments from geography, the floral and faunal remains, the climate, etc. An archaeologist will make inferences not just from the simple material remains of the occupants of a given site, but from many other sources that have been carefully researched as best we can with the tools available.

[ToadBrother]

Why Goodall's research is such a valuable means is the field data. I am not sure if there is current research to nail down any chimpanzee language in the context of their habitual environment (like dialect), where - if there were any present - their symbols have meaning to them. While we can admire our modern syntax and complex grammar, we also have to acknowledge that our form of language is unique - it could be that chimps and other apes use a complex combination of gesture, sound and environmental context to express meanings.

Full language isn't just about expressing meaning. Clearly animal calls of even much more primitive mammals and birds can do that. Syntax and complex grammars are something considerably different. Now maybe it's possible that some tribe of chimps out there has it, but if they do have the capacity, then they have shown no capacity for it in controlled circumstances.

I simply don't trust Goodall, and the reason is simple. She has confused her roles of a conservationist and a research primatologist. Too often when you listen to her, you're not sure whether she's promoting her ideas because she's wearing her scientist hat or whether she's wearing her researcher hat. Science, particularly cognitive sciences, have to remain very dispassionate, otherwise the results can be colored by the researcher's own particular biases.

[ToadBrother]

A few years ago I would be inclined to agree, but I am not longer certain of that:

OriginsNet run by James Harrod. Some of his stuff is a little 'out there' but very, very interesting nonetheless. Can't fault his credentials.

The main point being is when does a high level of craftmanship become 'art' or is that merely in the eye of the beholder or utility?

One thing that we must be careful of is not ignoring the environmental context of those ancient hominids when examining the material remains. The better portion of their lifeway did not make it to fossil record of course, but nowadays modern archaeology and its paleo- branch have become very interested in those paleo environments from geography, the floral and faunal remains, the climate, etc. An archaeologist will make inferences not just from the simple material remains of the occupants of a given site, but from many other sources that have been carefully researched as best we can with the tools available.

Could you then provide some link to any evidence of any kind of symbolism prior to 120,000 years ago? Even the date of 120ky is somewhat contested, with some researchers setting the date much closer in time.

[Shwa]

Full language isn't just about expressing meaning. Clearly animal calls of even much more primitive mammals and birds can do that. Syntax and complex grammars are something considerably different. Now maybe it's possible that some tribe of chimps out there has it, but if they do have the capacity, then they have shown no capacity for it in controlled circumstances.

I simply don't trust Goodall, and the reason is simple. She has confused her roles of a conservationist and a research primatologist. Too often when you listen to her, you're not sure whether she's promoting her ideas because she's wearing her scientist hat or whether she's wearing her researcher hat. Science, particularly cognitive sciences, have to remain very dispassionate, otherwise the results can be colored by the researcher's own particular biases.

Linguistics is a very young science, so controlled circumstances might not be the appropriate venue in the same way that ethnology-behind-the-desk has it's limits even in the modern information age.

As for Goodall, a means, not an end in itself, like any previous science or historical authorship the bias have to recognized for sure, but the data is still useable.

[Shwa]

Could you then provide some link to any evidence of any kind of symbolism prior to 120,000 years ago? Even the date of 120ky is somewhat contested, with some researchers setting the date much closer in time.

I did, OriginsNet. Here are a couple of the items he is looking at:

http://www.originsnet.org/nenatoolsfems/pages/a)berekram.htm - 243-470 kya BP

http://www.originsnet.org/nenatoolsfems/pages/b)tantanfront.htm - 300-500 kya BP

[ToadBrother]

Linguistics is a very young science, so controlled circumstances might not be the appropriate venue in the same way that ethnology-behind-the-desk has it's limits even in the modern information age.

A young science? It's over 200 years old.

As for Goodall, a means, not an end in itself, like any previous science or historical authorship the bias have to recognized for sure, but the data is still useable.

The "data" in question at times seems more her claims than actual data. I've talked to one or two researchers who take what she says with a grain of salt.

[ToadBrother]

I did, OriginsNet. Here are a couple of the items he is looking at:

http://www.originsnet.org/nenatoolsfems/pages/a)berekram.htm - 243-470 kya BP

http://www.originsnet.org/nenatoolsfems/pages/b)tantanfront.htm - 300-500 kya BP

You do realize, I hope, that neither of these objects are universally accepted as artifacts, right? The Venus of Tan-Tan, in particular, is seen by a number of researchers as a naturally-weathered object.

[Shwa]

A young science? It's over 200 years old.

The "data" in question at times seems more her claims than actual data. I've talked to one or two researchers who take what she says with a grain of salt.

Linguistics in the sense as a 'science' from Saussure onward. Linguistics has a great long history, but would the stuff previous to structuralism be considered scientific today? Maybe a social science...

You have to take Goodall's data with a grain of salt of course, but it is data and very useful data at that. I take the Jesuit Relations with a grain of salt, but it contains a heck of a lot of data on the early Native American culture.

[cybercoma]

speculation other animals have that ability has no value because it's wishful thinking without evidence...

Who's speculating that?

[cybercoma]

What is most amusing is that the atheists assume that I am some sort of religious person

Not at all. I assume you're a complete asshole for calling atheists child molesters, nothing more.

[Shwa]

You do realize, I hope, that neither of these objects are universally accepted as artifacts, right? The Venus of Tan-Tan, in particular, is seen by a number of researchers as a naturally-weathered object.

But of course. And practically no discovery of this type started off as universal without a good raking over by the skeptics in academia, especially those who hold a contrary view. And there are likely other problems than just naturally weathered, but they do offer an intriguing door that one well qualified researcher thinks worthy of exploration so we all benefit.

What is interesting is the similarity between The Venus of Tan-Tan & other, much later Venus figurines.

[ToadBrother]

Linguistics in the sense as a 'science' from Saussure onward. Linguistics has a great long history, but would the stuff previous to structuralism be considered scientific today? Maybe a social science...

Comparitive lingustics, at least, has existed as a solid discipline since the end of the 18th century. I mean, are you calling the Brothers Grimm social scientists?

You have to take Goodall's data with a grain of salt of course, but it is data and very useful data at that. I take the Jesuit Relations with a grain of salt, but it contains a heck of a lot of data on the early Native American culture.

The problem is that if you have to take it with a grain of salt, it's utility is severely hampered. Not everyone agrees with Goodall's conclusions, and like I said, her own behavior often makes things more than a little suspect. I'm not saying she's dishonest, I'm saying she has a bias that she does little to dispel.

[ToadBrother]

But of course. And practically no discovery of this type started off as universal without a good raking over by the skeptics in academia, especially those who hold a contrary view. And there are likely other problems than just naturally weathered, but they do offer an intriguing door that one well qualified researcher thinks worthy of exploration so we all benefit.

What is interesting is the similarity between The Venus of Tan-Tan & other, much later Venus figurines.

No one is saying the Venus of Tan-Tan isn't a worthy object to explore, or that it doesn't hint at a potentially earlier date for key modern human behaviors, but there is no consensus, and thus far there's enough questioning of whether it is worked or weathered that trying to make vast leaps of logic over it seems a step too far. It may turn out to be an artifact, and that will revolutionize our understanding of when we became "us" (so to speak), or it may just turn out to be another example of that psychological phenomenon that makes us see Richard Nixon in that fluffy cloud overhead.

Edited December 30, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

Or perhaps you don't know a damned thing about me. Even if your story about this guy is true (which it may or may not be), it's like saying all Catholic priests are child molesters because a few are. Your logic, not to say anything of your basic ethics, is highly questionable.

Do you actually have anything meaningful to add to the debate apart from asserting that I'm a child molester?

Not all Catholic priests are stupid- nor are all destroyers of children - I have one thing to add and I make it loud and clear - I NEVER ONCE ASSERTED THAT YOU WERE A CRIMMINAL THAT HARMED CHILDREN - for you to attempt to put those words in my mouth that you are a child molester makes you worse than one of these - you are a molester of adults and I feel violated by this attempted set up to paint me as a slanderer...sorry buddy but it did not work - I have seen all the tricks in the books and the best lawyer warp time and space and reality itself - you are an ameteur.

[Oleg Bach]

Also Toad - if you are so anti-religious then you should be posting on the anti-religion and politics board not the religion and politics section...and nice try at attempting to ban me with your fraudulent bit of mischief - the last person that removed me from this forum - is no longer here and I am still welcome...be careful - I have friends...and apparently you are not very good at winning them.

[ToadBrother]

Not all Catholic priests are stupid- nor are all destroyers of children - I have one thing to add and I make it loud and clear - I NEVER ONCE ASSERTED THAT YOU WERE A CRIMMINAL THAT HARMED CHILDREN - for you to attempt to put those words in my mouth that you are a child molester makes you worse than one of these - you are a molester of adults and I feel violated by this attempted set up to paint me as a slanderer...sorry buddy but it did not work - I have seen all the tricks in the books and the best lawyer warp time and space and reality itself - you are an ameteur.

Then what was the purpose of bringing up some alleged nameless atheist you knew who ended up being (allegedly) a child molester? I mean, I could make up a story about some idiotic immigrant from Eastern Europe who had the logical capabilities of a retarded monkey who liked to have sex with golf balls to try to in some way impugn you.

The only reason, so far as I can tell, that you brought up the whole child-molesting atheist story was some sort of bizarre attempt to get a dig at the few of us on this forum that are in fact atheists. But if I'm wrong, please explain what exactly the purpose of the story was? If it does not apply to me or other atheists, then what was the point?

[ToadBrother]

Also Toad - if you are so anti-religious then you should be posting on the anti-religion and politics board not the religion and politics section...

I'd like you to show where I've ever been anti-religious. Yes, I'm anti-Creationist, and I make no secret of that, but since Creationism is advocated only by a minority of churches even with the Christian tradition, being against Creationism is not being anti-religious.

I have fully and completely admitted that my atheism isn't scientific, that, from an epistemological point of view, it is no better and no worse than theism.

and nice try at attempting to ban me with your fraudulent bit of mischief

I never tried to ban you. I have no idea what you're talking about.

- the last person that removed me from this forum - is no longer here and I am still welcome...be careful - I have friends...and apparently you are not very good at winning them.

The only person making threats around here is you. Clearly you aren't capable of sustaining any kind of sensible or rational conversation, and now you're making ominous tones in my direction. Well, you know where you can stick those noises, pal.

Edited December 30, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

Then what was the purpose of bringing up some alleged nameless atheist you knew who ended up being (allegedly) a child molester? I mean, I could make up a story about some idiotic immigrant from Eastern Europe who had the logical capabilities of a retarded monkey who liked to have sex with golf balls to try to in some way impugn you.

The only reason, so far as I can tell, that you brought up the whole child-molesting atheist story was some sort of bizarre attempt to get a dig at the few of us on this forum that are in fact atheists. But if I'm wrong, please explain what exactly the purpose of the story was? If it does not apply to me or other atheists, then what was the point?

Firstly the story is true. I am not saying that all atheists grow tits and drive their young wives to suicide then molest their own children..but this particular person was anti-law and a super liberal thinker. I look at our ancient traditions no so much as religion but law..codes of behaviour..If you do not pervert the teaching of Christ the way religion did then society would fair better. "I have not come to destroy the law but to fulfil every stroke and letter of the law" - to para pharse.

My mode of communication is provocative in style and don't take it personally please! This prick I mentioned who was a very aggressive and fanatical atheist does not represent most atheists - In fact most atheists that I know are more in tune with justice and law and in fact more Christ like than so-called Christians - most atheists have no use for religion and I agree with them - but I keep the God factor serious and simple. It is a chain of command..

- and I am not God but simply an underling..as we all should be - as our Canadian Charter states in it's spirit which is the pre-amble...The Supremacy of God and the rul of law there under" again to para-phase - this was put in place much as "in God we trust" was stamped on American currency - to make sure a jerk did not start playing God - it is the eccense of democracy and true egalitarianism. Even if you do not believe in God it is good to pretend to do so to keep order!