Atheists Unite!
-
wow...foreign talent ah?Originally posted by Cystaire:Do me a favour and read real science journals like Nature or Science or at least popular magazines like Scientific American.
If all you know about science is from creationist websites, then you will miss out on the real discoveries that is happening right now.
This is public forum so I won't talk about the details of my own work, but I am studying evolutionary biology and of course I have a testable hypothesis (with approved funding) and I am testing it right now.
I am not the only one, there are thousands of scientists studying evolution and many more applying its results to daily life.
Contrast that to a handful of creationist who have discovered... what exactly?
i wished i got the chance man...haha.... -
*Sigh*Originally posted by banzie:No you are not proving my claims... you can't even prove your own claims.... just by stating this and tat... it doesn't matter what kind of scientific education one has... I sees that you have difficulty defending yourself.
Where should I start? You wrote:
"Tell me what does the fossil tells you that you can be so sure that it shows life form? If so why not now? Why must it be in fossil age? Why aren't there any of such else where?"
When you write such twisted questions, how do I address it?
Fossils are remains of hard parts (and very occasionally some soft parts) of life forms that have turned to rock over millions of years. Since they are fossils of course they are in fossil age which is of course not now. They are found all over the world, for example the Burgess Shale in Canada. Other fossil sites include USA, UK, China, Mongolia, Argentina and even Thailand.
And it DOES matter how much science you're been trained, so that I can explain to you based on what you know.
Otherwise if I am going about sympatric speciation and you don't understand, I am just talking to myself. -
No, I'm Singaporean.Originally posted by Xtrider:wow...foreign talent ah? i wished i got the chance man...haha....
Ha ha the grass is always greener... science is hard to do, my friend.
-
where is banzie har? lunch?
-
I should clarify that this is a misrepresentation of science. Of course direct imaging of a virus is only possible in more modern times (Electron microscope ~1950s) but scientists and doctors have been aware of the characteristics and effects of viruses for many years.Originally posted by banzie:Yea with a microscope right? How come no one says that 100 years ago?
The advent of modern imaging doesn't "prove" viruses immediately. Lots of evidence was already available.
Read Edward Jenner, an early pioneer of vaccination, for example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/jenner_edward.shtml
Incidentally this article has a nice quote:The immediate reaction to Jenner's work was ridicule. Critics, especially the clergy, claimed it was repulsive and ungodly to inoculate someone with material from a diseased animal. A satirical cartoon of 1802 showed people who had been vaccinated sprouting cow's heads. However the obvious advantages of vaccination and the protection it provided won out, and vaccination soon became widespread.
Reproducible and systematic effects rule -
Originally posted by Ito_^:where is banzie har? lunch?
Btw how did this thread drift towards evolution vs creationism?
I thought it's a thread about atheists, and I'm not actually an atheist per se -
Cos creationism is one of the many flaws in the religion. Therefore, the topic just drift to somewhere else. Still relevant but maybe we can discuss other flaws in religions too.
-
Originally posted by Xtrider:
hmm...there are still many phenomena left unexplained till this day. for eg cosmologists are still unable to ascertain the whether the universe is finite or infinite,how the universe began etc etc....
[b]The greatest joke ever, is to explain to people that they are trying to prove something which doesnt exist in the first place. I tell you why religion exist. Religion came before science because people fear and do not know what is happening around them, so they attribute it to some supernatural power. However, as science progress, people become more knowledgeable. Do u believe that the light in ur house is powered by electricity or some supernatural power? Similarly, some dude from 1 BC will atribute the lighting to god's work because he simply wun understand the concept of electricity. So unless science can prove everything, there will always people who believes in god and religion.[/b]
even though there are many credible scientific papers postulating the events immediately after the Big Bang, like the creation of all the types of matter the scientific world knows today, eg electrons protons,carbon etc etc, knowledge of the creation process is ultimately not the knowledge of the creator and till today there isn't any solid scientific study that succeeds in telling us why the Big Bang happen.
in the bewildering mix of scientific theories that are being thrown up everyday in Man's pursuit of understanding of the world around us and with so many uncertainties, wouldn't it be nice to have an anchor that gives rise to a more stable development of science for the long term? esp so when modern science, while giving us factual truths like how lightning is created, it can also be problematic and confusing....thinking of the recent declassification of pluto as a planet makes me wonder just how many of those so called 'established scientific truths' out there are acutally infallible.
in short i agree that people become more knowledgeable as science progresses,but knowledgeable in the sense that people are more aware of how things work in our life and not so much in the creation of stuff that existed in our universe eons ago and the reasons they are created for.
i think that atheists are perhaps too overconfident about the prowess of science in explaining every phenomena while ignoring the flaws of modern science,and also maybe too arrogant to appreciate the fact that Man is still a finite being with limited resources. So in the meanwhile what's the harm in believing in myths and the supernatural while seeking answers for it?
just my $0.07 worth(GST increased liao ) -
This was originally printed in The American Rationalist, Volume 17, Number 3, September/October 1962. How ironic that it should apply even today :
"The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known. That philosophy regards the world as it actually is, views it in the light of the data provided by progressive science and social experience. Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries.
We make a fundamental error, I think, as we tilt at the windmills of imagined gods. We need to review from where we have come, under what conditions, and to see the threshold upon which we stand now.
Our history has been marked by a ceaseless struggle against ignorance and superstition. In ancient Greece the works of the materialist philosopher Democritus, who first taught the atomic theory of matter, were destroyed. Anaxagoras was banished from Athens for being an Atheist. The materialist philosopher Epicurus, revered by the ancients for having liberated man from fear of gods and for asserting the validity of science, was for 2000 years anathematized and falsely depicted as an enemy of morality and a disseminator of vice. The Alexandria library, housing 700,000 scientific and literary works, was burned by Christian monks in 391 AD. Pope Gregory I (590-604) destroyed many valuable works by ancient authors. In every society there have been forces that have stood to lose by the dissemination of progressive scientific views. In the past these forces either directly persecuted progressive scientists and philosophers or sought to distort scientific discoveries so as to deprive them of their progressive, materialistic implications.
The Inquisition, a papal invention for suppressing all opposition to the Catholic Church, savagely persecuted all progressive thinkers; Giordano Bruno, Ludilio Vanini, and Galileo come readily to mind.
Voltaire was imprisoned in the Bastille, and Diderot was sent to prison. In our own country we are familiar with the story of Thomas Paine, of the Salem witch trials, of Ingersoll, of Einstein. The struggle is unceasing, as important today as during any other period of history.
We need, therefore, to see what we fight and why. We need not direct our main assault against the Bible or the Koran. We need not argue endlessly about the historicity of Jesus. We should look past trinities and angels and other theological blind alleys. We must look to materialistic philosophy which alone enables men to understand reality and to know how to deal with it. It is true that today our kind are no longer burned at the stake, but there are many other ways of exerting pressure. Our scientists and progressive philosophers are dismissed from universities and other employment. Outspoken scientific and philosophical works are much less likely to be published than rather senseless junk. Character assassination is common. Reactionary religious propaganda is unceasingly drummed into unthinking minds through the captive media of mass communication. As always, our opponents today are formidable. But our strength lies in the positive approach of uncovering and publicizing the laws of nature and human behavior, and in applying these laws in the interest of human welfare. We need not waste our time with endless arguments about tortuous paths of the endless labyrinths of theology.
We need to know upon what we base ourselves. Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists. " - Madalyn Murray OÂ’Hair, Founder of American Atheists
Click here to read the full text -
Originally posted by ProudlySingaporean:
Good article.
hmm...there are still many phenomenons left unexplained till this day. for eg cosmologists are still unable to ascertain the whether the universe is finite or infinite,how the universe began etc etc....
even though there are many credible scientific papers postulating the events immediately after the Big Bang, like the creation of all the types of matter the scientific world knows today, eg electrons protons,carbon etc etc, knowledge of the creation process is ultimately not the knowledge of the creator and till today there isn't any solid scientific study that succeeds in telling us why the Big Bang happen.
in the bewildering mix of scientific theories that are being thrown up everyday in Man's pursuit of understanding of the world around us and with so many uncertainties, wouldn't it be nice to have an anchor that gives rise to a more stable development of science for the long term? esp so when modern science, while giving us factual truths like how lightning is created, it can also be problematic and confusing....thinking of the recent declassification of pluto as a planet makes me wonder just how many of those so called 'established scientific truths' out there are acutally infallible.
in short i agree that people become more knowledgeable as science progresses,but knowledgeable in the sense that people are more aware of how things work in our life and not so much in the creation of stuff that existed in our universe eons ago and the reasons they are created for.
i think that atheists are perhaps too overconfident about the prowess of science in explaining every phenomenons while ignoring the flaws of modern science,and also maybe too arrogant to appreciate the fact that Man is still a finite being with limited resources. So in the meanwhile what's the harm in believing in myths and the supernatural while seeking answers for it?
just my $0.07 worth(GST increased liao )
I have to emphasize that "established scientific truths" are always being refined. They are not cast in stone and can be fallible. However, theories such as gravitation and evolution are based on so much evidence that it is not easy to displace them. You will need a lot of data to overthrow those ideas.
Believing in myths is OK, but it shouldn't be so strong as to displace the trust that we have in our evidence-based approach. Otherwise it can be very harmful.
Take the Edward Jenner case for example. If it was decreed that nobody was permitted to become innoculated, then small pox will still be killing millions of people today. -
the last part is funny...Originally posted by ProudlySingaporean:hmm...there are still many phenomena left unexplained till this day. for eg cosmologists are still unable to ascertain the whether the universe is finite or infinite,how the universe began etc etc....
even though there are many credible scientific papers postulating the events immediately after the Big Bang, like the creation of all the types of matter the scientific world knows today, eg electrons protons,carbon etc etc, knowledge of the creation process is ultimately not the knowledge of the creator and till today there isn't any solid scientific study that succeeds in telling us why the Big Bang happen.
in the bewildering mix of scientific theories that are being thrown up everyday in Man's pursuit of understanding of the world around us and with so many uncertainties, wouldn't it be nice to have an anchor that gives rise to a more stable development of science for the long term? esp so when modern science, while giving us factual truths like how lightning is created, it can also be problematic and confusing....thinking of the recent declassification of pluto as a planet makes me wonder just how many of those so called 'established scientific truths' out there are acutally infallible.
in short i agree that people become more knowledgeable as science progresses,but knowledgeable in the sense that people are more aware of how things work in our life and not so much in the creation of stuff that existed in our universe eons ago and the reasons they are created for.
i think that atheists are perhaps too overconfident about the prowess of science in explaining every phenomena while ignoring the flaws of modern science,and also maybe too arrogant to appreciate the fact that Man is still a finite being with limited resources. So in the meanwhile what's the harm in believing in myths and the supernatural while seeking answers for it?
just my $0.07 worth(GST increased liao ) the declassification of pluto, is simply what it is, classification. It doesnt mean tt pluto will cease to exist or anything like tt. Yea true. Since science is still in progression, there will still be religions and supernatural believes to replace it. -
I see no end to these arguments.
-
dammit sia. pluto was my favourite planet.Originally posted by Xtrider:the last part is funny... the declassification of pluto, is simply what it is, classification. It doesnt mean tt pluto will cease to exist or anything like tt. Yea true. Since science is still in progression, there will still be religions and supernatural believes to replace it.
-
Like I said... proof please... No point keep saying this and that and this and that... It slike I can say exactly the following...Originally posted by Cystaire:Do me a favour and read real science journals like Nature or Science or at least popular magazines like Scientific American.
If all you know about science is from creationist websites, then you will miss out on the real discoveries that is happening right now.
This is public forum so I won't talk about the details of my own work, but I am studying evolutionary biology and of course I have a testable hypothesis (with approved funding) and I am testing it right now.
I am not the only one, there are thousands of scientists studying evolution and many more applying its results to daily life.
Contrast that to a handful of creationist who have discovered... what exactly?
After all evolution is still a theory.... carbon dating losses its validity in fact after more than 3000 years. There are evidence that shows carbon dating could have mistakes too... where things beneath soil are seems newer than things above soil...
But seriously... you are pushing everything aside simply by telling everyone go read the science magazine etc... and expect no one actually go do that and come back proving you wrong right? Why not do everyone a favour and prove your claims... Seriously from your first threads till now you had been telling me to go read this and tat... but you stated nothing substatial... haven't quote a thing from the Magazine etc....
check this http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67 If you got the prove why not be $250,000 richer?
Everything thinks evolution is the only theory... in fact there was quite a few theories existed.... ( including alien theory unfortunately) but why evolution seems more accepted is becoz it sounds more logical ONLY explain things that happened... even the history of homosapian was debated and changed as new proofs are shown... There are still NO testable data that shows evolution works... Please don't mislead anyone here thank you. Where exactly is life form on earth? Nothign found yet... scientist yet to find... maybe only your so called fossil... Frankly Evolutionist can say all they want but if you look at all the facts... its as hard to believe as others... IMO religion seems easier to believe.
There is no twisting of facts for both creationist... how can facts be twisted in the first place? Everyone look at a coin in its own perspective.... I may see a head but you can see a tail... so who is right? its the same facts looking at different direction... -
maybe my grammer wasn't right... now explain again.... "Life Formed" How does it prove life formed from?Originally posted by Cystaire:*Sigh*
Where should I start? You wrote:
"Tell me what does the fossil tells you that you can be so sure that it shows life form? If so why not now? Why must it be in fossil age? Why aren't there any of such else where?"
When you write such twisted questions, how do I address it?
Fossils are remains of hard parts (and very occasionally some soft parts) of life forms that have turned to rock over millions of years. Since they are fossils of course they are in fossil age which is of course not now. They are found all over the world, for example the Burgess Shale in Canada. Other fossil sites include USA, UK, China, Mongolia, Argentina and even Thailand.
And it DOES matter how much science you're been trained, so that I can explain to you based on what you know.
Otherwise if I am going about sympatric speciation and you don't understand, I am just talking to myself. -
how u noe a tail is a tail and a head is a head for someone who never seen a coin before?Originally posted by banzie:There is no twisting of facts for both creationist... how can facts be twisted in the first place? Everyone look at a coin in its own perspective.... I may see a head but you can see a tail... so who is right? its the same facts looking at different direction...
that is twisting of fact if i tell u a tail is a head and a head for a tail. -
that is right but he is giving you his opinion... its just like evolutionist want to tell everyone one that evolution works when its just their perspective derive from the observation... just as creationist does the same.... whose observation is right? who's side of the coin are they looking at?Originally posted by Ito_^:how u noe a tail is a tail and a head is a head for someone who never seen a coin before?
that is twisting of fact if i tell u a tail is a head and a head for a tail. -
If we know how...? Why can't we recreate it again?Originally posted by banzie:maybe my grammer wasn't right... now explain again.... "Life Formed" How does it prove life formed from? -
Why most people believe in evolution?
Simply because most of the people in the science group believe so and it sound as if more logical than the other theories... then they tell everyone that... everyone believe it coz they think they are scientist.... its as good as 200 years ago... everyone believe in creation. No proof sorry... evolution doesn't stand in my opinion...
Just like Doctor say you are sick with cancer and you believe so as its his pofessionalism... but you could be mistreated... what if another doctor thinks you had something else? After all it shows the same symptoms... -
dude...there are more than 2 scientists in the world...haha..science is accepted because it works. It is the reason why u can type this out in a forum on the internet. There are disputes because people are trying to refine it to make it better. Evolution is accepted because we share genes with many animals, namely the primates family, and mouse etc. This is one of the prove.Originally posted by banzie:Why most people believe in evolution?
Simply because most of the people in the science group believe so and it sound as if more logical than the other theories... then they tell everyone that... everyone believe it coz they think they are scientist.... its as good as 200 years ago... everyone believe in creation. No proof sorry... evolution doesn't stand in my opinion...
Just like Doctor say you are sick with cancer and you believe so as its his pofessionalism... but you could be mistreated... what if another doctor thinks you had something else? After all it shows the same symptoms... -
hi fellow atheists and non-atheists....... i am a athetists... its nice that this topic is created again.
science is about learning more about our reality and universal, understanding the patterns and rules of it so that we can apply them to our lives and bring benefits.
other knowledges like engineering, invention, biology, chemistry and physics has brought us to where we are today. aeroplanes, handphones, computers, new medical technology that saves lives all these things are purely works of human that work everyday using our own brains to create new things and improve our lives.
science cannot prove everything simply because our universe has too many rules and we have only 5-6 billions humans on earth. with such little brain power relative to amount of things in universe, we are of course not aware of many things.
here is the point. when we do not understand things and cannot explain many things, how should we conclude it.
for stupid people, their line fo thought will be "It has to be God, how do you explain all the unknowns"
the correct conclusion is this:" we don't know about this unexplainables at this point of time so we leave it as a 'we don't know yet' things"
to repeat, there are too many things in universe to study so there will definitely be endless amount of things to learn and understand more. all this has nothing to do with GOD for goodness sake.
lastly, religion exist because human minds is not smart enough. moreover, its hard to convince non-atheist and religious people that their reasoning are faulty and they should go and read up more about world and go and watch the discovery channel.
arguing often leads to defensive reasoning which lead both parties to be more convinced of their own beliefs, even when there is only one right answer.
this phenonmenon is common not only on religious issue but on politics, or even family issues.
as to why there are so many things in the universe to learn and study. the answer is we don't know and not "because GOD created it". all we know is that through science and knowledge, we are able to find new knowledge about the world in a systemic way and verifable way.
in fact, if you look at science, its main pillar of reasoning is that the hypotheis are testables, and verifable and its final conlusions is that they are true of the moments under certain conditions and assumptions. science has never being about boasting that it knows everything. its is simply about a sequence of doable and verifable art that allows people to know more and more each day.
finally, i see it inevitable that for knowledgable people, it is the duty of them to help those who are still in the supertitious mode to lead them out of the supertitious world.
its not a feud between us, nethier should we spen too much time laughing and criticisng about their beliefs, although i do criticise them abit in my aritcle.
at the end of the day, we have to see this as a problem of how to make people smarter and less supertitious by using all kinds of knowledge we have and keep learning ourselves and hopefully we can make this world filled with more smarter people who attempts to learn more regularly about knowledge and can cooperate more.
i am a engineering student in singapore. good luck to everyone. -
Originally posted by banzie:In fact a creationist website is offering $250,000 for anyone who can offer read datas on evolution that works.... Since you have it... why not go claim it? Since you said evolution is testable....
I will give u USD5,000,000 is you can :
i) walk on water
ii) bring back to life dead folks
iii) split the Red Sea
iv) turn water into wine.
U ask people to prove evolution, maybe u want to proof creationist? -
Originally posted by bozo43:
i think u may wanna take it back...with science they are all possible now...
[b]
I will give u USD5,000,000 is you can :
i) walk on water
ii) bring back to life dead folks
iii) split the Red Sea
iv) turn water into wine.
U ask people to prove evolution, maybe u want to proof creationist? [/b] -
If you are so smart... Create life for me to see.Originally posted by Xtrider:i think u may wanna take it back...with science they are all possible now... -
Correct me if i'm wrong but science still cannot provide a conclusive answer as to what gravity really is, as in science can explain the how', but arguably not the 'what' and certainly not the 'why' regarding gravity. Perhaps Prof Brian Ridley(physicist at University of Essex)'s book 'On Science' may elucidate the flaws of science more clearlyOriginally posted by Cystaire:I have to emphasize that "established scientific truths" are always being refined. They are not cast in stone and can be fallible. However, theories such as gravitation and evolution are based on so much evidence that it is not easy to displace them. You will need a lot of data to overthrow those ideas.
True...but i guess most of us here dun really die die must believe that dragons or zeus truly exist right?Originally posted by Cystaire:Believing in myths is OK, but it shouldn't be so strong as to displace the trust that we have in our evidence-based approach. Otherwise it can be very harmful.
Originally posted by Cystaire:Take the Edward Jenner case for example. If it was decreed that nobody was permitted to become innoculated, then small pox will still be killing millions of people today.
we can draw a parallel between this incident and all the debate on bioethics that only came about of late. in both cases we are unsure of the eventual long-term consequences of the application of the latest radical scientific procedures despite all the extensive scientific research. so people tend to use religion to judge the validity and feasibility of such radical ideas and hence giving u the notion that religion is sort of like impeding the progress of science. But have you wondered what if there are no safeguards that keeps scientific progress in check? yes scientific progress, such as research in the field of life sciences, will definitely be more rapid but at what expense?
The immediate reaction to Jenner's work was ridicule. Critics, especially the clergy, claimed it was repulsive and ungodly to inoculate someone with material from a diseased animal. A satirical cartoon of 1802 showed people who had been vaccinated sprouting cow's heads. However the obvious advantages of vaccination and the protection it provided won out, and vaccination soon became widespread.
Do u know that the boundaries between the human realm and beast is getting blurred at a frightening speed in today's world?There's this Newsweek article...dunno whether can find online not...by Professor Lee M Silver of Princeton's Department of Molecular Biology that reported the creation of human-animal chimeras by biologists.Think of all the moral conundrums that are brought about by such scientific experiments.And you also heard about beastiality right? Would god-fearing people do such things? Maybe yes but the tendency for a scientist with religious considerations to do so will be much less than a scientist bent on achieving breakthroughs( not the bestiality part lar
)
So what i'm trying to say is that religion serves as a good and stable anchor for humans while keeping scientific progress in check instead of hindering it.
Just to sidetrack a little, dun you think that that Edward Jenner guy is like taking potshots in the dark and hoping to strike lottery?I know that his revolutionary idea saved many lives but WHAT IF a new and more lethal hybrid of viral disease may just be created all thanks to him and his experiments?? How can he be that damn sure that such a possibility wont occur?
[/i]