http://atheistblogger.com/forums/ Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:48:09 +0100 MyBB http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=91 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:31:48 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=91 When we mathematically model aspects of evolution with genetic algorithms we see forming mathematical formulae which are not necessarily true formulae, yet are functional, at the level of local optima. This is all religion is -- a formulation of false ideas which spew some benefit. Their benefit is a local optimum. Obviously, more realistic ideas about the Universe generate more useful behaviors.]]> When we mathematically model aspects of evolution with genetic algorithms we see forming mathematical formulae which are not necessarily true formulae, yet are functional, at the level of local optima. This is all religion is -- a formulation of false ideas which spew some benefit. Their benefit is a local optimum. Obviously, more realistic ideas about the Universe generate more useful behaviors.]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=90 Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:08:00 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=90
Child:"Daddy, is Nanny in heaven with god?"
Theist answer: "Yes, she's watching over us now and we'll see her again one day"
Atheist answer: "No, Nanny is gone forever. But we'll always remember her, the love she gave us, and all she taught us".
Question: Which answer is better for the child?

Obviously, you could extend the question with word's like "Which answer is better for the child's psychological well-being?" or "Which answer will help the child mature into a balance, well-adjusted adult?"

Just wondered what you guys think, because the answers I've been getting (after many awkward silences) contain stuff about "No child can accept that sort of an answer" etc. I'm uncomfortable to say this, but I can't wait to put this theory to the test. Maybe if we'd all been given atheist answers from the start there'd be a lot more atheists out there?]]>
Child:"Daddy, is Nanny in heaven with god?"
Theist answer: "Yes, she's watching over us now and we'll see her again one day"
Atheist answer: "No, Nanny is gone forever. But we'll always remember her, the love she gave us, and all she taught us".
Question: Which answer is better for the child?

Obviously, you could extend the question with word's like "Which answer is better for the child's psychological well-being?" or "Which answer will help the child mature into a balance, well-adjusted adult?"

Just wondered what you guys think, because the answers I've been getting (after many awkward silences) contain stuff about "No child can accept that sort of an answer" etc. I'm uncomfortable to say this, but I can't wait to put this theory to the test. Maybe if we'd all been given atheist answers from the start there'd be a lot more atheists out there?]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=89 Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:05:37 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=89 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=88 Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:21:28 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=88
What say? :)]]>
What say? :)]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=86 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:27:49 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=86
Finally I found a forum that talks about truth. Its good to see all the people & read their views. I definitely will have great time here.

FYI, I was raised as a Hindu but out of my 30 years of life I have been an Atheist for 16 & loved every minute of it.

There is NO going back for me because even if there is a god, he is going hate me anyway ;)

VRF]]>
Finally I found a forum that talks about truth. Its good to see all the people & read their views. I definitely will have great time here.

FYI, I was raised as a Hindu but out of my 30 years of life I have been an Atheist for 16 & loved every minute of it.

There is NO going back for me because even if there is a god, he is going hate me anyway ;)

VRF]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=85 Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:28:16 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=85
-Matt, Hello Peoples?]]>
-Matt, Hello Peoples?]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=84 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:03:43 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=84
I'm 60 years old, straight, married, one adult daughter, ex-Catholic atheist. I was a submarine officer when in the Navy, which means I'm also a nuclear engineer. Presently I'm a senior executive at a large casino.]]>
I'm 60 years old, straight, married, one adult daughter, ex-Catholic atheist. I was a submarine officer when in the Navy, which means I'm also a nuclear engineer. Presently I'm a senior executive at a large casino.]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=83 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:02:41 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=83
I actually don't believe randomness exists.

The way I think of it, randomness is the 'brother' of spontaneousness...which is the basis for God.

Really it all depends on perspective. If I write down the numbers 1 - 10 on index cards, one card being 1, another being 2, etc. and put them in a paper bag , and put my hand in and pick a card "randomly," my brain is actually deciding at some specific point in time to transmit a message to my fingers to pick up a card. Let's say I picked up the card with the number 2 on it. To my obvious knowledge, the card I picked was random and the number on it was unknown to me, but in reality, my brain told my fingers to pick up the card which I did, which was not random. I DID pick up the card with number 2 on it, and that was for a reason.

Really, I'm not satisfied with that example. Perhaps responding to one of your responses will get the words I am trying to get out to express what I actually believe.]]>
I actually don't believe randomness exists.

The way I think of it, randomness is the 'brother' of spontaneousness...which is the basis for God.

Really it all depends on perspective. If I write down the numbers 1 - 10 on index cards, one card being 1, another being 2, etc. and put them in a paper bag , and put my hand in and pick a card "randomly," my brain is actually deciding at some specific point in time to transmit a message to my fingers to pick up a card. Let's say I picked up the card with the number 2 on it. To my obvious knowledge, the card I picked was random and the number on it was unknown to me, but in reality, my brain told my fingers to pick up the card which I did, which was not random. I DID pick up the card with number 2 on it, and that was for a reason.

Really, I'm not satisfied with that example. Perhaps responding to one of your responses will get the words I am trying to get out to express what I actually believe.]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=81 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:04:10 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=81 ]]> ]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=80 Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:30:40 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=80 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=79 Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:01:33 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=79 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=78 Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:24:13 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=78
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topic/show...mment14231

When he answered the charges in a thread in the Atheist Nexus forums, the first reply to his comment said this:


Quote:Sorry to be paranoid, but would you mind taking the Blasphemy Challenge for us?


What the hell? When I realized that the Bible was full of crock, I thought to myself, "Wow... so it's all full of crock." I didn't know about the Blasphemy Challenge, I don't care about the Blasphemy Challenge, and the reason why I would take the Blasphemy Challenge is to get that documentary "The God Who Wasn't There." (which I still haven't seen.)

Isn't claiming to be an atheist on an atheist forum enough? Isn't taking the "Blasphemy Challenge" a lot like the Nicene Creed or any other creed from any other religion? Isn't that what we are trying to avoid?

The post from member Brian was serious, and so was Thor's response.

Thor is a member of this forum, so if he sees this, I hope he responds.]]>
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topic/show...mment14231

When he answered the charges in a thread in the Atheist Nexus forums, the first reply to his comment said this:


Quote:Sorry to be paranoid, but would you mind taking the Blasphemy Challenge for us?


What the hell? When I realized that the Bible was full of crock, I thought to myself, "Wow... so it's all full of crock." I didn't know about the Blasphemy Challenge, I don't care about the Blasphemy Challenge, and the reason why I would take the Blasphemy Challenge is to get that documentary "The God Who Wasn't There." (which I still haven't seen.)

Isn't claiming to be an atheist on an atheist forum enough? Isn't taking the "Blasphemy Challenge" a lot like the Nicene Creed or any other creed from any other religion? Isn't that what we are trying to avoid?

The post from member Brian was serious, and so was Thor's response.

Thor is a member of this forum, so if he sees this, I hope he responds.]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=77 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:54:45 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=77
Here's the story in a nutshell:

Religious Fundamentalist refuse to believe that any organism is capable of evolution.
Researchers from the University of Michigan release a study on the evolution of bacteria.
Religious Fundamentalist want access to the data used to make the claim (because obviously this is just BIG SCIENCE's attempt to promote the lie that is evolution.).
Richard Lenski gives them the full paper.
Religious Fundamentalist ignore the paper and demand raw data.
Internet Cluster Fuck ensues.


There's a great write up today in Ars Technica about how much access tax payer funded scientists owe the public. I encourage everyone to read it. I am a tax payer funded scientist, so I have a vested interest in this story. The conclusion is one that I agree with: The general public has the right to inspect everything that scientists do, all the way down to the individual colonies of bacteria used in the experiment. Of course, if the public wants the bacteria, they must show that they have the capacity to properly maintain the bacteria, which they probably can't do.

This is an example of the total superiority that science has over religion when it comes to truth about the natural world.]]>
Here's the story in a nutshell:

Religious Fundamentalist refuse to believe that any organism is capable of evolution.
Researchers from the University of Michigan release a study on the evolution of bacteria.
Religious Fundamentalist want access to the data used to make the claim (because obviously this is just BIG SCIENCE's attempt to promote the lie that is evolution.).
Richard Lenski gives them the full paper.
Religious Fundamentalist ignore the paper and demand raw data.
Internet Cluster Fuck ensues.


There's a great write up today in Ars Technica about how much access tax payer funded scientists owe the public. I encourage everyone to read it. I am a tax payer funded scientist, so I have a vested interest in this story. The conclusion is one that I agree with: The general public has the right to inspect everything that scientists do, all the way down to the individual colonies of bacteria used in the experiment. Of course, if the public wants the bacteria, they must show that they have the capacity to properly maintain the bacteria, which they probably can't do.

This is an example of the total superiority that science has over religion when it comes to truth about the natural world.]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=76 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:01:19 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=76
The IRC chat consisted of 4 people this time, including Hemant Mehta himself, who managed to respond to our criticism and answer every question we threw at him. It was a very enjoyable hour.

As we discussed in the chat, we thought that the first few chapter were a bit long winded for atheists since they go on about what atheism is and how Hemant became one. However the book isn't aimed at atheists so that is excusable. The reviews of the churches were great, as were his summing up points on how to improve their activities.]]>
The IRC chat consisted of 4 people this time, including Hemant Mehta himself, who managed to respond to our criticism and answer every question we threw at him. It was a very enjoyable hour.

As we discussed in the chat, we thought that the first few chapter were a bit long winded for atheists since they go on about what atheism is and how Hemant became one. However the book isn't aimed at atheists so that is excusable. The reviews of the churches were great, as were his summing up points on how to improve their activities.]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=75 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:22:10 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=75
http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-Worl...325&sr=1-1]]>
http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-Worl...325&sr=1-1]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=74 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:03:36 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=74
It debunks a few reasons for believing in gods, and reasons against the others.

http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-People-Giv...399&sr=8-1]]>
It debunks a few reasons for believing in gods, and reasons against the others.

http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-People-Giv...399&sr=8-1]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=73 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:55:55 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=73
"Biblical Nonsense - A Review Of The Bible For Doubting Christians"

Of course I'm no doubting Christian, but the book covers detailed explanations of the major nonsensical parts of the Bible which would be of interest to most atheists. Essentially it's a load of good arguments you can use to refute the Bible in case you ever need to with a Bible-bashing theist :P

http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Nonsense-...937&sr=8-1]]>
"Biblical Nonsense - A Review Of The Bible For Doubting Christians"

Of course I'm no doubting Christian, but the book covers detailed explanations of the major nonsensical parts of the Bible which would be of interest to most atheists. Essentially it's a load of good arguments you can use to refute the Bible in case you ever need to with a Bible-bashing theist :P

http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Nonsense-...937&sr=8-1]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=72 Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:26:46 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=72

Code:
PROGRAM isgodreal
    IMPLICIT NONE

    REAL :: God

END PROGRAM isgodreal


This program compiles on my computer with 0 errors and 0 warnings. God is real. Of course, God is not properly defined (despite being explicitly typed), has no intrinsic qualities, and thus has no side effects. Still... it can be shown that that God does exist, albeit limited to FORTRAN's scoping rules.


Quote:God is Real, unless declared Integer.

-J. Allan Toogood, FORTRAN programmer.]]>

Code:
PROGRAM isgodreal
    IMPLICIT NONE

    REAL :: God

END PROGRAM isgodreal


This program compiles on my computer with 0 errors and 0 warnings. God is real. Of course, God is not properly defined (despite being explicitly typed), has no intrinsic qualities, and thus has no side effects. Still... it can be shown that that God does exist, albeit limited to FORTRAN's scoping rules.


Quote:God is Real, unless declared Integer.

-J. Allan Toogood, FORTRAN programmer.]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=71 Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:56:30 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=71
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to invite all Christians to have a responsible and peaceful discussion. Although I don't think a website devoted to Atheism is on the priority list for any Christian, I just want to have a discussion with you.

I will not be cross and will not use offensive (I never do anyway) or sarcastic remarks.

I was a Christian before but had a change of mind. I would maybe like to share my experiences with you.

If you still think I'm a jerk for being an Atheist, that's fine with me, but if you would like to live a better life with peace of mind, I urge you to listen just as I will to anything you have to say.

Thank you.
~Nick]]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to invite all Christians to have a responsible and peaceful discussion. Although I don't think a website devoted to Atheism is on the priority list for any Christian, I just want to have a discussion with you.

I will not be cross and will not use offensive (I never do anyway) or sarcastic remarks.

I was a Christian before but had a change of mind. I would maybe like to share my experiences with you.

If you still think I'm a jerk for being an Atheist, that's fine with me, but if you would like to live a better life with peace of mind, I urge you to listen just as I will to anything you have to say.

Thank you.
~Nick]]> http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=70 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:57:33 +0100 http://atheistblogger.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=70
There are many contradictions, errors and horrible laws in the Bible, yet many Christians promote following the teachings of this book.

Lev. 20:13 Gay men should be put to death.

Ex. 31:15 Kill anyone that has worked on a Sunday.

Ex. 21:17 Kill anyone who has ever got upset and used swear words against one of their parents.

Lev. 20:10 Kill anyone that commits adultery (adultery is defined as marrying someone that has been divorced according to Matthew 5.32)

Ex. 22:20 Destroy those that follow other religions.
Deuteronomy 17:2-7 Kill anyone with a different religion.

There are many more outrageous laws Christians are ordered to follow. All these laws are supposedly direct quotes from God and there is no mention of a time limit when the laws end. Many Christians will say that since the above laws are in the Old Testament, Christians can ignore them because Jesus came to change those old laws.

I spent a lot of time reading the Bible and I found this interesting supposed direct quote from Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 (Ryrie Study Bible, New American Standard)

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But, whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

This quote is very clear. Keeping and teaching the Laws of Moses should be continued and the laws should NOT be changed "until all is accomplished" and it is not clear what "until all is accomplished" means. My guess is that "all" still has not been accomplished because "all" means "all" and "all" probably includes Jesus coming back, which has not happened yet.

Why do so many Christians quote scripture from the Old Testament when they agree with what it says, but say that Jesus changed it when the Old Testament says outrageous things? Why do they use the line about Jesus changing the laws of the Old Testament when Matthew 5:17-19 clearly states that Jesus did not want to change the old laws???


Many people have suffered or been killed because of those who follow the teachings of the Bible. A human being is probably less likely to want to hurt another person unless there is a book they think comes from the word of God that tells them to kill people that have different religions or work schedules that force them to work on Sunday, etc.

I believe the Bible was not the word of a god, but just the words of ordinary men trying to accomplish the following:

*get money (10% of everyone's money is supposed to go to the people who created and then later promoted the religion)

*dominate women: Exodus 20:17 (women are property of husband), Exodus 20:17 (rules for selling your daughter), Exodus 22:16-17 (rules for how much of a dowry to pay when a man has sex with a virgin and wants to marry her), Leviticus 19:20-22 (if a man rapes a female slave the female should be punished), Deuteronomy 22:28-29 ( rules requiring a virgin to marry the man who raped her), 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (women should remain silent in church), Ephesians 5:22-24 (rules about how women should submit themselves to their husbands)

*to make it seem ok to have many wives (the writers of the Bible did not condemn having multiple wives in many parts of the Bible)

*get the masses to go to war to conquer new lands (the Bible has helped motivate Christians to go kill people in other lands that have different beliefs)

*to try to explain things that are probably always going to be unexplainable


What are the chances that the religion someone chooses to follow is actually truthful? Out of the thousands of religions that have been started throughout history only one could be right, and probably they are all wrong. No one really knows what created all this and what happens after we die. It is amazing how many religions are flourishing when there is so little evidence that any of them are telling the truth.

My experience has been that the more I read the Bible the more obvious it is to me that it was not inspired by a god, just written by a small group of men trying to get a religion started that would benefit them. When you read the laws in the Bible about men not getting punished for raping a woman and raped virgins being required to marry the man who raped them, does that sound like teachings from a god or laws thought up by men??

Bill Carson]]>
There are many contradictions, errors and horrible laws in the Bible, yet many Christians promote following the teachings of this book.

Lev. 20:13 Gay men should be put to death.

Ex. 31:15 Kill anyone that has worked on a Sunday.

Ex. 21:17 Kill anyone who has ever got upset and used swear words against one of their parents.

Lev. 20:10 Kill anyone that commits adultery (adultery is defined as marrying someone that has been divorced according to Matthew 5.32)

Ex. 22:20 Destroy those that follow other religions.
Deuteronomy 17:2-7 Kill anyone with a different religion.

There are many more outrageous laws Christians are ordered to follow. All these laws are supposedly direct quotes from God and there is no mention of a time limit when the laws end. Many Christians will say that since the above laws are in the Old Testament, Christians can ignore them because Jesus came to change those old laws.

I spent a lot of time reading the Bible and I found this interesting supposed direct quote from Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 (Ryrie Study Bible, New American Standard)

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But, whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

This quote is very clear. Keeping and teaching the Laws of Moses should be continued and the laws should NOT be changed "until all is accomplished" and it is not clear what "until all is accomplished" means. My guess is that "all" still has not been accomplished because "all" means "all" and "all" probably includes Jesus coming back, which has not happened yet.

Why do so many Christians quote scripture from the Old Testament when they agree with what it says, but say that Jesus changed it when the Old Testament says outrageous things? Why do they use the line about Jesus changing the laws of the Old Testament when Matthew 5:17-19 clearly states that Jesus did not want to change the old laws???


Many people have suffered or been killed because of those who follow the teachings of the Bible. A human being is probably less likely to want to hurt another person unless there is a book they think comes from the word of God that tells them to kill people that have different religions or work schedules that force them to work on Sunday, etc.

I believe the Bible was not the word of a god, but just the words of ordinary men trying to accomplish the following:

*get money (10% of everyone's money is supposed to go to the people who created and then later promoted the religion)

*dominate women: Exodus 20:17 (women are property of husband), Exodus 20:17 (rules for selling your daughter), Exodus 22:16-17 (rules for how much of a dowry to pay when a man has sex with a virgin and wants to marry her), Leviticus 19:20-22 (if a man rapes a female slave the female should be punished), Deuteronomy 22:28-29 ( rules requiring a virgin to marry the man who raped her), 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (women should remain silent in church), Ephesians 5:22-24 (rules about how women should submit themselves to their husbands)

*to make it seem ok to have many wives (the writers of the Bible did not condemn having multiple wives in many parts of the Bible)

*get the masses to go to war to conquer new lands (the Bible has helped motivate Christians to go kill people in other lands that have different beliefs)

*to try to explain things that are probably always going to be unexplainable


What are the chances that the religion someone chooses to follow is actually truthful? Out of the thousands of religions that have been started throughout history only one could be right, and probably they are all wrong. No one really knows what created all this and what happens after we die. It is amazing how many religions are flourishing when there is so little evidence that any of them are telling the truth.

My experience has been that the more I read the Bible the more obvious it is to me that it was not inspired by a god, just written by a small group of men trying to get a religion started that would benefit them. When you read the laws in the Bible about men not getting punished for raping a woman and raped virgins being required to marry the man who raped them, does that sound like teachings from a god or laws thought up by men??

Bill Carson]]>