Atheism

[AngryAnt]

I really don't think Gen 1 says anything definitive on how God created. I just makes it clear that He did in a way that any person can comprehend. I personally (I'm not speaking for all Christians here) think there may be layers of meaning in the text, like there are in much of the Bible. If you want to know more, there are plenty of websites on the issue.

OK, I'll ask you again. From what you've said right there, Genesis is a metaphor right? So why waste time trying to prove it literally happened?

And I've seen your websites.

 

[Djevv]

Yes, phylogeny is a human construct and is open to interpretation, however it is clear that human are apes. This is supported by our similarities to other apes at many different levels. We are different to other apes, especially in our cognitive functions, but we are still apes.

What does only apes mean? I have never understood that particular mentality. We are humans, a species of ape and I certainly care about how I behave and my fellow man behaves. As for trees and fungi, we can compare humans to any living organism and you would be amazed to see the level of conservation retained, even over these evolutionary distances....the footprints of evolution are clear when you start to look at the molecular level.

I think the differences far outweigh the similarities. How are out cognitive functions similar? How would we know, has anyone had meaningful discourse with an ape on the state of it's mind?

I find it somewhat amusing that you see such significance in 'biochemical similarites'. Perhaps we should be discovering our 'inner fungus' :hihi?

 

[Djevv]

OK, I'll ask you again. From what you've said right there, Genesis is a metaphor right? So why waste time trying to prove it literally happened?

And I've seen your websites.

Where did I say it was a metaphor?

 

[Djevv]

You demonstrated conclusively (to me at tleast ) that you don't have the first clue about the subject of ethics.

So yes,I'd prefer if you were my sons teacher that you stuck to scientific theories in the science classes.

Actually, morality and ethics is part of the science curriculum, so I would not be doing my job if I didn't focus on it. I'm sure Panther would agree that morality and ethics is critical to a well rounded science education.

Furthermore, when I need advice from a self confessed libertine - read someone who deliberately flouts societies morals - on how to behave morally and ethically I will ask for it. Don't hold your breath.

 

[jayfox]

Yes, phylogeny is a human construct and is open to interpretation, however it is clear that human are apes. This is supported by our similarities to other apes at many different levels. We are different to other apes, especially in our cognitive functions, but we are still apes.

What does only apes mean? I have never understood that particular mentality. We are humans, a species of ape and I certainly care about how I behave and my fellow man behaves. As for trees and fungi, we can compare humans to any living organism and you would be amazed to see the level of conservation retained, even over these evolutionary distances....the footprints of evolution are clear when you start to look at the molecular level.

If we are only apes then why does a person get up to life imprisonment for killing another human and potentially no penalty at all for killing an ape, unless they are endangered? I suppose with your belief that we are apes then the same jail term should apply to someone who kills any kind of ape as it does if they kill a human. Accidentally killing an ape would result in a manslaughter (or perhaps that should read apeslaughter) charge? Why stop there we are apparently related to all animals via evolution so killing a cow for example should be punishable as well perhaps?

Now, I know that you will probably say that nature dictates that animals kill each other for survival and food and so we should be able to kill a cow if we intend to eat it. Does that mean that a person who has a fetish for human flesh should be able to kill other humans for survival, as long as he eats them?

I am obviously being facetious but if we are truly only apes then these rules should apply, shouldn't they?

 

[Disco08]

I guess it all depends on how much value you place on life doesn't it. Western culture, heavily influenced by The Bible's teaching that man is above all other animals accordingly puts more value on human life than others, to the point that killing for fun is quite often acceptable. Other cultures, Buddhist countries for example, place far greater value on all life.

How much better off would the earth be today had all societies followed the principles of Buddhism? Certainly there'd little or no destruction of the earth's natural habitat which seems to be causing massive problems now.

 

[jayfox]

God actually forgave people of their sins if they slaughtered animals? Surely this would make things worse, not better? Did these sacrifices actually permit people into heaven?

The best of each flock was sacrificed for God as part of asking for His forgiveness. The point of this was to show that these people held nothing before God. They would give up their most prized possession in order to show that they held Him above everything and desired His forgiveness for their sins. I am very surprised that you did not know this as you appear to/claim to have studied the Bible quite closely and yet harvest sacrifice is described throughout the OT. It is the reason that Able was killed by Cain for example.

Why not just send Jesus down to die for people's sin originally?

I'm not sure. That is obviously the way that God wanted to do it. God was in direct contact with people in OT times though so maybe that had something to do with it? I'll have a think about it - too busy with work to think too much atm.

I find the symbology associated with Jesus fascinating. Most interesting I think is that the sun (son) rises (is resurrected) from a 3 day death (crucifixion), rising (born) from the constellation Virgo (a virgin) at the exact point (Bethlehem: literal translation - 'House Of Bread', another name for the zodiac constellation Virgo) where a line drawn between the 3 stars of the constellation called the 3 kings (3 wise men) will land on earth if it (they) passes through (follows) the brightest star in the northern hemisphere winter sky, Sirius (a star in the east) on December 25th. Furthermore, the sun (Son) travels through (with) the 12 constellations (disciples) each year but resides in the sector of the southern cross (crux) every December 22-25 before being born again.

Interesting but I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean? There are obvious similarities there. Why on Earth is Virgo known as the 'Virgin' and 'House of Bread'? That seems odd. Do these things pre-date Christ?

Even more amazing is that the centre of the ancient pagan symbolisation of the zodiac is the sun, and when drawn in it's most basic form, as it often was, looks like this (the one on the right):

[/quote]

I'm not sure what you are getting at with this one?

 

[jayfox]

I guess it all depends on how much value you place on life doesn't it. Western culture, heavily influenced by The Bible's teaching that man is above all other animals accordingly puts more value on human life than others, to the point that killing for fun is quite often acceptable. Other cultures, Buddhist countries for example, place far greater value on all life.

How much better off would the earth be today had all societies followed the principles of Buddhism? Certainly there'd little or no destruction of the earth's natural habitat which seems to be causing massive problems now.

The Bible teaches us to respect the Earth and we are put in charge of it's welfare, so there is a fair argument that if we followed the Bible's principles then the Earth would be in much better shape too.

 

[Disco08]

The best of each flock was sacrificed for God as part of asking for His forgiveness. The point of this was to show that these people held nothing before God. They would give up their most prized possession in order to show that they held Him above everything and desired His forgiveness for their sins. I am very surprised that you did not know this as you appear to/claim to have studied the Bible quite closely and yet harvest sacrifice is described throughout the OT. It is the reason that Able was killed by Cain for example.

Seems a little contrary to respecting the earth and taking charge of its welfare, assuming that statement includes all life on earth as well as the environment.

Interesting but I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean? There are obvious similarities there. Why on Earth is Virgo known as the 'Virgin' and 'House of Bread'? That seems odd. Do these things pre-date Christ?

Virgo is latin for virgin. The contellation Virgo was also known as The House Of Bread because this was the area the sun dwelt during times of wheat harvest, allowing people to make bread. The ancient depictions of Virgo show a maiden holding a bunch of wheat. All this stuff pre-dates Christ by centuries.

Do you find it a little coincidental that the supposed town of Mary's virgin birth just happens to translate literally to the name of the constellation named after the virgin daughter of Zues, Astraea?

I'm not sure what you are getting at with this one?

With all the similarities between ancient Sun worship and the zodiac, I think that Christianity using the exact same symbol is also pretty coincidental.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Actually thats a slight (slight) change from your earlier posts. Earlier you were telling the kids their discussion was non-scientific, telling them why, and then directing them to discuss it in a more appropriate forum.

I have no issue at all with what you have said in any of this. I don't think we should have "Karma 101" on the curriculum, but if in the discussion of a particular issue a kid raises a faith based or spiritual angle relevant to the issue, it should be discussed. BTW this does not condone hijacking either (you discuss, cover the issue, and then get back to whats on the agenda - although as a student I used to love trying to take the teacher off topic for the full 50 minutes ;D)

Perhaps I stated it poorly, but I haven't changed by position. What you describe is the structure of such a discussion in a science classroom.

Discussion of any topic that has any connection to the curriculum even through (or perhaps especially) misunderstanding should be encouraged. I don't think that such things should be included in the curriculum, even as examples of bad science, as it greys the definition of science for the student and where do you draw the line on what to include on such a topic?

In other words, I think we pretty much agree.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

If we are only apes then why does a person get up to life imprisonment for killing another human and potentially no penalty at all for killing an ape, unless they are endangered? I suppose with your belief that we are apes then the same jail term should apply to someone who kills any kind of ape as it does if they kill a human. Accidentally killing an ape would result in a manslaughter (or perhaps that should read apeslaughter) charge? Why stop there we are apparently related to all animals via evolution so killing a cow for example should be punishable as well perhaps?

Now, I know that you will probably say that nature dictates that animals kill each other for survival and food and so we should be able to kill a cow if we intend to eat it. Does that mean that a person who has a fetish for human flesh should be able to kill other humans for survival, as long as he eats them?

I am obviously being facetious but if we are truly only apes then these rules should apply, shouldn't they?

We certainly have laws against cruelty to animals. This is not based on the relationship between humans and the animal, but on recognition of their capacity to suffer (hence you don't get in trouble for pulling up the weeds!). We humans place more value in human life than that of other life (rightly or wrongly).

I do believe that the killing of animals as a food source is justified (not everyone does though) however the killing of another human as a food source is clearly a blatant infringement on their rights as another human being and in this way differs from the slaughter of livestock.

As apes, why should such rules apply? According to whom? Not me (nor you I presume).

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I think the differences far outweigh the similarities. How are out cognitive functions similar? How would we know, has anyone had meaningful discourse with an ape on the state of it's mind?

I find it somewhat amusing that you see such significance in 'biochemical similarites'. Perhaps we should be discovering our 'inner fungus' :hihi?

So now you are an expert of neurology and psychology? Just because you haven't looked at the literature on the topic doesn't mean it doesn't exist (your incredulity aside). We actually do share a lot in common with other apes cognitively compared to, for example, a cow. We also have unique cognitive functions that have evolved more recently.

I am interested to know what differences you think outweigh the similarities?

I am also not clear on why you find the biochemical differences so forgettable, they are another clear indication of our common descent. You inner fungus is there....you just need to know what to look for!

 

[Tiger74]

In other words, I think we pretty much agree.

After the clarification, yes we do

 

[Djevv]

So now you are an expert of neurology and psychology? Just because you haven't looked at the literature on the topic doesn't mean it doesn't exist (your incredulity aside). We actually do share a lot in common with other apes cognitively compared to, for example, a cow. We also have unique cognitive functions that have evolved more recently.
I am interested to know what differences you think outweigh the similarities?

Sometimes you assume a lot, Panther! I studied primatology at uni and, of course, we studied both ape societies and ape language studies. The ape societies were very interesting, and I think can teach us something of value about ourselves, but not a lot. People are language users, rational and spiritual creatures and apes are not - hence while there is similarity, there is a world of difference.

Ape language studies basically showed that apes can't use language beyond the most basic level and have little interest in it.

I am also not clear on why you find the biochemical differences so forgettable, they are another clear indication of our common descent. You inner fungus is there....you just need to know what to look for!

I was making a little joke anyway, yes, there is certainly a unity in life. I'm not sure what this tells us about the nature of humanity - except that us and the rest of the living world had the same origin.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Sometimes you assume a lot, Panther! I studied primatology at uni and, of course, we studied both ape societies and ape language studies. The ape societies were very interesting, and I think can teach us something of value about ourselves, but not a lot. People are language users, rational and spiritual creatures and apes are not - hence while there is similarity, there is a world of difference.

Ape language studies basically showed that apes can't use language beyond the most basic level and have little interest in it.

I assume you studied undergraduate primatology? I studied pathology at undergraduate level, but certainly don't consider myself an expert in the area. Have you kept up to date with findings in the field?

There are certainly obvious difference between humans and primates, primarily in cognitive functions (including language use as you point out). However there are similarities in many areas. The publication of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome gives amazing insight into how similar (and different!) we are at the biochemical level.

As for rational thought, we certainly have the capacity but don't always practice it!

How would you define spirituality?

I was making a little joke anyway, yes, there is certainly a unity in life. I'm not sure what this tells us about the nature of humanity - except that us and the rest of the living world had the same origin.

It tells us more than that. The imperfections, the presence of vestigial organs, the contingent nature of adaptations, the incidence of convergent evolution (with unique evolutionary pathways), the presence of shared non-functional DNA sequences between related organisms, the evidence in the fossil record, the geographic distribution of organisms, to name just a few independent lines of evidence gives us great insight into where we, as humans, and all other life fit into the 'big picture'.
[/quote]

 

[Djevv]

I assume you studied undergraduate primatology? I studied pathology at undergraduate level, but certainly don't consider myself an expert in the area. Have you kept up to date with findings in the field?

Huh? Am I claiming expertese? No, I am definitely not up to date. Fascinating course though.

There are certainly obvious difference between humans and primates, primarily in cognitive functions (including language use as you point out). However there are similarities in many areas. The publication of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome gives amazing insight into how similar (and different!) we are at the biochemical level.

Biochemistry, though an interesting subject is not really what i am on about here. Great to see we agree that the differences are significant.

As for rational thought, we certainly have the capacity but don't always practice it!

I certainly agree with that .

How would you define spirituality?

The general tendency of human beings to believe in divine beings/ spirits/ the afterlife. I was also thinking that our tendency toward artistic endeavours is also a significant difference. Perhaps also the use of machines rather than simple tool use is also diagnostic.

It tells us more than that. The imperfections, the presence of vestigial organs, the contingent nature of adaptations, the incidence of convergent evolution (with unique evolutionary pathways), the presence of shared non-functional DNA sequences between related organisms, the evidence in the fossil record, the geographic distribution of organisms, to name just a few independent lines of evidence gives us great insight into where we, as humans, and all other life fit into the 'big picture'.

OK, I'll go along with that, but I see it from a theistic perspective. I think you are conflating these lines of evidence with naturalism though.

 

[Disco08]

All ranges of animals have been observed marking the passing of loved family members with bizarre rituals and ceremony. Surely this demonstrates some type of spirituality among these groups as you've described it?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Huh? Am I claiming expertese? No, I am definitely not up to date. Fascinating course though.

Ok...it is just that when you assert that there must be significant differences I wanted to know what you based that conclusion on. As the basis for the cognitive differences are still an area of active research you can't really say how signficant the differences are.

Biochemistry, though an interesting subject is not really what i am on about here. Great to see we agree that the differences are significant.

Perhaps not, but at its root we are talking about biochemical differences between the species....even neurology has a cellular basis after all. Whether we will ever be able to really understand that level of complexity (ie neuronal complexity, not specifically in humans) is unknown.

I certainly agree with that .

The general tendency of human beings to believe in divine beings/ spirits/ the afterlife. I was also thinking that our tendency toward artistic endeavours is also a significant difference. Perhaps also the use of machines rather than simple tool use is also diagnostic.

The fact that humans have always had belief systems to explain the world around them and that is expressed in different and often contradictory manners is one of the more convincing arguments against the truth of any one religion. To claim the accuracy of one's religion is pretty much saying that you were extraordinarily lucky that you were born in the place and time where that religion is practiced. Wouldn't a natural tendency (for whatever reason) to belief, pattern seeking, seeing meaning in the mundane and ascribing intent to natural forces in humans be a more believable explanation?

OK, I'll go along with that, but I see it from a theistic perspective. I think you are conflating these lines of evidence with naturalism though.

I made no claim that evolution disproves the existence of any gods. It explains something that has historically and even in modern times was/is ascribed to gods. If you want to believe in a god that works through the forces of evolution, than that is a completely different debate than the one we have been having. You have often expressed scepticism over the reality of evolution generally and specifically about common descent. This is what I have been arguing against. It is you that perceives that as a challenge to your beliefs, not anything I have said about it.

Of course I see no evidence of or requirement for a god to explain the world around me, but that is another discussion.

 

[Djevv]

All ranges of animals have been observed marking the passing of loved family members with bizarre rituals and ceremony. Surely this demonstrates some type of spirituality among these groups as you've described it?

Do tell!

 

[Disco08]

My bad, I saw a doco on this a while ago and could have sworn they said in it something about other animal rituals, but now that I look it up I see that this is actually unique to elephants. Still, it seems pretty spiritual to me, especially when you see footage of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_intelligence#Death_ritual