Posts by snare&racket

219

An important difference between atheists and true believers

by Hortensia in

true believers, whether christian, muslim or whatever, want to convert you, they want you to believe what they do, and they're willing to go to extremes to make it happen.

atheists don't really care what you believe, and don't go out of their way to convert someone.. http://ow.ly/vn1jz an example of what believers in power do to suppress any difference in thought.

http://ow.ly/vraeo an example of why believers want to suppress different ideas (because they can't win in a fair fight, that's why).

snare&racket

"My description does, however, apply to what others recently on this board have called "fundamentalist atheists". I figured out what that meant, it's people who feel the need to save others by encouraging them to have faith in scientists."

Faith is assured expectation for things hoped for. Faith requires no evidence. Faith is dangerous and ill advised. I don't have faith in science! I test it and question it and only accept it on evidence. Why would anyone not do that? We are not evangelising science, that is like saying we evangelise gravity or atoms or even evolution. I do promote evidence and the best mechanism for retrievimg it..... the scientific method. But if people want to reject it,mI have no issue with that. I come here to talk to people who WANT to learn.

I must ask, how does faith apply to science? We don't hope that e=mc2 or that chemotherapy kills cancer cells or that evolution happens. Once more it is an attempt to make athism a religion by claiming we are out converting. Not only are you once more making claims about atheists, i.e. their views on science, having already admitted before saying the above that you shouldn't do that, but you are also wrong.

I would say without a doubt in my mind and in full honesty I 100% have an agenda to deconvert people, but not to follow me, or follow any belief system....but to deconvert & to take up critical appraisal and evidence and free thought...nothing more.

266

There Was No First Human

by cofty in

this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

snare&racket

There is no meeting in Brussells where all the scientists get together to discuss the problem of defining species, it is simply that there are sevral ways of seperating genetic prgression i.e. species.

The most common is the most obvious, its day one biology class....when an animal becomes so diverted from its parent species that it can no longer breed with it, it is a new species.

The issue?

In the most true evolutionary form, this is about genes being so different to the original species genes they can no longer procreate. In simple terms, the dna code is so different that they no longer can be read together. Like trying to mash a french book and a german book together.

But some biologists include mechanical restriction too, like a yorkshire terrier not being able to procreate with a greyhound, because it simply can't reach!

There is no actual debate however and no real use for a definition of a species. There is no gold standard or perfect example of a specific species, unless the environment stops changing, which it won't and on top of that all species would have to adopt the same enviroment, i.e. have the same influences to the genes.. then you could narrow it down, but this is hypothetical beyond possible. Environment includes predators, weather, grography, climate etc etc....so many variables on one planet, what is useful to a human here in the UK is not useful to a human in west Africa... black pigmentation and as said, sickle cell for malaria protection.

It isn't that science is in turmoil over the issue, Watchtower used to quotemine as if there was disagreements in science, in reality there is no right answer and the scientists differ depending on their objective. To think there can be a blueprint for a species is to not know or understand biology, specifically evolution. It is a constant variation in all directions, gene by gene, baby by baby... only the enviroment will dictate the most suitable, the fittest.

135

Shark Evolution

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://descrier.co.uk/science/fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks.

i used to consider sharks to be evidence for creation - and against evolution because it was stated that they are largely unchanged after millions of years ( hence, 'what evolution?')..

that's not the case, however.

snare&racket

fundementalism is a religious definition..... if you want to bastardise the word and say it applies to anyone vigourously defending a belief, how on earth does it apply to a population who DON'T believe? Evidence is all atheists have in common and all they go on, how can someome be vigorous FOR evidence?

It is a cheap attempt to make non belief a religion, a poor attempt to make it appear a 50/50 scenario, it makes believers feel better, atheism is just another opinion, just another belief system. I don't care if people want to spend their life thinking that.... but it's ignorant.

Tell you who are the worst fundementalists, non believers in Santa, they even tell their kids! Why not just let everyone believe in him, it makes people happy and it gives us a great tradition! ohhh those damn asantaists! Vigorous non believers who wont had it said santa exists. Well I say the greatest trick santa has every pulled is making us think he doesn't exist!

266

There Was No First Human

by cofty in

this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

snare&racket

Here is a good way to explain it....

There was not a first englishman, there was not a first english speaker..... there was not one day, where the first french speaker suddenly was born & appeared. Language is comparable to genes and populations.

For the exact same reasons as evolution, it is all progressive, tiny changes over time.

189

Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

by KateWild in

as many may be aware.

i don't like the man.

but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.

snare&racket

Rejecting evolution based on a lifetime of WT dogma and being too scared to look at opposing views in science, i.e. the evidence.... is very different to being an ex JW rejecting science and evidence. There is nothing holding back the examination of evidence once you leave.

Don't get me wrong, in my opinion I would be harming my children if I raised them rejecting science and with replacing free thought with dogma. I truly believe that.

135

Shark Evolution

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://descrier.co.uk/science/fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks.

i used to consider sharks to be evidence for creation - and against evolution because it was stated that they are largely unchanged after millions of years ( hence, 'what evolution?')..

that's not the case, however.

snare&racket

A fundametalist atheist....REALLY doesn't believe in god... and takes the words of apostle Sagan literally.

Kinda contradicts the bible that says everyone is not atheist, but believes.... lol.

7

Predicting the future like Isaac

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

the prophet from the stars, mr isaac asimov made some predictions for 2014, (please note the lack of ambigous monsters of several heads and horns)....he was very, very specific all the way back in 1964..... communications will become sight-sound and you will see as well as hear the person you telephone.

the screen can be used not only to see the people you call but also for studying documents and photographs and reading passages from books.

synchronous satellites hovering in space will make it possible for you to direct-dial any spot on earth.. by 2014, only unmanned ships will have landed on mars, though a manned expedition will be in the work.. gadgetry will continue to relieve mankind of tedious jobs.

snare&racket

References? It isn't science..... it's his opinion and he wrote it all in a 1964 New York times article.

A science fiction writer is better at predictions than any religions and holy texts I have ever come across. He didn't claim to be inspired though. I assume from your request of 'references' you are impressed and want to see evidence of the predictions.

Tis a good topic title isn't it!

snare x

30

what is the answer to the old question about the immovable object and the irresistible force?

by Hortensia in

i know isaac asimov's answer, which makes sense to me.

anyone else have any answer to the question about what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?.

snare&racket

my best guess....an infinite and non progressive meeting of forces i.e. no progress, a bit like pondering the question.

266

There Was No First Human

by cofty in

this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

snare&racket

Apog, with respect, you are using wikipedia to look up the definition of species, yet you want to present a mechanism for defining all species.. may I humbly suggest a little humility. Is there not a teeny weeny bit of your mind saying maybe you are not fully aware of all the facts and variables?

This is how the experts do it... what exactly is at fault here?

7

Predicting the future like Isaac

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

the prophet from the stars, mr isaac asimov made some predictions for 2014, (please note the lack of ambigous monsters of several heads and horns)....he was very, very specific all the way back in 1964..... communications will become sight-sound and you will see as well as hear the person you telephone.

the screen can be used not only to see the people you call but also for studying documents and photographs and reading passages from books.

synchronous satellites hovering in space will make it possible for you to direct-dial any spot on earth.. by 2014, only unmanned ships will have landed on mars, though a manned expedition will be in the work.. gadgetry will continue to relieve mankind of tedious jobs.

snare&racket

The Prophet from the stars, Mr Isaac Asimov made some predictions for 2014, (please note the lack of ambigous monsters of several heads and horns)....he was very, very specific all the way back in 1964....

Communications will become sight-sound and you will see as well as hear the person you telephone. The screen can be used not only to see the people you call but also for studying documents and photographs and reading passages from books. Synchronous satellites hovering in space will make it possible for you to direct-dial any spot on Earth.

By 2014, only unmanned ships will have landed on Mars, though a manned expedition will be in the work.

Gadgetry will continue to relieve mankind of tedious jobs. Kitchen units will be devised that will prepare 'automeals', heating water..

Robots will neither be common nor very good in 2014, but they will be in existence.

Men will continue to withdraw from nature in order to create an environment that will suit them better. By 2014, electroluminescent panels will be in common use.

Wall screens will have replaced the ordinary television set; but transparent cubes will be making their appearance in which three-dimensional viewing will be possible.

The world of AD 2014 will have few routine jobs that cannot be done better by some machine than by any human being. Mankind will therefore have become largely a race of machine tenders.

All the high-school students will be taught the fundamentals of computer technology.

Although technology will still keep up with population through 2014, it will be only through a supreme effort and with but partial success. Not all the world's population will enjoy the gadgetry world of the future to the full. A larger portion than today will be deprived and although they may be better off, materially, than today, they will be further behind when compared with the advanced portions of the world. They will have moved backward, relatively