tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3333019208769525050.post4346503341151644630..comments2023-10-23T09:24:51.208-04:00Comments on Is this Canon?: The Atheist ChallengeAlexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09080862228915906393noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3333019208769525050.post-12100439842223931262009-10-10T05:59:12.452-04:002009-10-10T05:59:12.452-04:006 Wasn’t the constitution (which protects your rig...6 Wasn’t the constitution (which protects your rights) based on biblical principles?<br /><br />I have no idea. Nor do I care enough about USA case law to research it. <br />I guess the question assumes that biblical law is perfect and if the constitution and other USA laws were derived from biblical law therefore they are perfect too. <br /><br />Observations:<br />Bible ethics are not always moral in the modern sense and in some cases contradictory.<br /><br />Under constitutional and biblical law:<br /> # You could / can have slaves<br /> # In our living life time Blacks have been permitted rights of white people<br /> # Woman were / are discriminated against and in very recent history were given legal rights i.e. could vote.<br /><br />It’s always a good idea when quoting the Christian Commandments to have all of the commandment and their variants. Laughs. The commandments have been altered a few times over the centuries.. (the unalterable law of god.. )<br /><br />Take one of the commandments:<br />Ie The Fourth Commandment: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.<br /><br />This little number was added to try are clarify the perfect word of god. Despite the additions which made it the longest of the commandments, they still failed to name exact day of the Sabbath. On an interesting note, one of the variants commands that people who work the sabbath be put to death. <br /><br />Regards the Sabbaths date, the seven days of the week, months and years were only decided on in 45BC, 1000 AD and then refined 500years ago (The Gregorian Calendar). <br /><br />45 BC:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar<br /><br />1582 AD<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar<br /><br />The 4th Commandment:<br />http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/commandment04.htm<br /><br />Interesting thought: A two thousand year period in the life age of the modern human race is a fart next to a supernova, why were these rules not handed out at creation? and maybe written on out hand for reference. Also the christian god failed to tell the whole human race of her rules. She told one tribe on one small part of the planet. Does it seem wrong that god failed to mention, her rules, the birth of her son and other such things to: The Chinese, The Aborigines of Australia, the Maoris of NZ, The Native American Indians and so on. <br /><br />Conclusion..<br />Biblical Law and has chopped and changed over the centuries and is not the perfect law we would expect from a perfect god. It has all the marking of something man made. I can not comment on constitutional law because I did not research it. However the actions of the American Peoples history have been consistent aligned with flawed moral biblical principals, such as slavery, no rights for blacks and woman. Thank fully reason has banished these evil practices to the side notes of history.Joseph McGehanhttp://twitter.com/GodlesslyGaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3333019208769525050.post-72802181157176265052009-10-08T10:36:43.183-04:002009-10-08T10:36:43.183-04:005. There is archaeological proof that Jesus did in...5. There is archaeological proof that Jesus did indeed walk this earth some two thousand years ago. Is there any proof that we evolved from some intergalactic comet?<br /><br />What is the “archaeological” proof mentioned about the existence of Jesus. It would be nice if it were cited that way we can test the facts. The second point about comets has no relevance to the existence of Jesus. The comet idea while unmentioned might be the theory of pansperma? (the seeding of life across planets).<br /><br />Panspremia<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia<br /><br />The second part of question five is there proof for panspremia in our evolution? Firstly this is a theory, it is not proven fact as yet. There is a very high probability that the theory is correct. There are some very interesting facts that may lead to this conclusion:<br /><br />The time required to evolve DNA is longer than the age of our earth ( Crick)<br />Bactria has been found in space and can repair it’s self from UV and Radiation damage (Extremophiles)<br />Biological by products ie methane has been found on other planets (if the earth biology is anything to go by)<br />Meteor fragments have been found in the same time line as when life exploded on earth. The fragments have the markings of life on them, that leads to two possibilities One: life was in the fragment and came to earth. Two the earth had life that penetrated the fragment. <br /><br />Crick<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick<br /><br />Extremophile<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile<br /><br />Evidence for life in Meteorites<br />http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast20dec_1.htm<br /><br />Regards the statement:<br /><br />Jesus is an interesting subject. I would argue, he probably did exist but though the smoke of the ages and chinese whispers it is entirely possible he was not exactly like what Christianity thinks he is today. <br /><br />The Bible was written 300 years after the death of Christ. It took place in great Pagan Roman city of Constantinople. This “council of Nacia” brought together all the writings about Jesus and “decided” what ones were to become the main document. Note several books eventuated from this.. Firstly the Bible and centuries latter the Koran. The council changed some of the text, including moving key dates into alignment with pagan dates. For example the birth of Jesus was moved from September to the winter solstice (the same time as other regional gods birthdays). An interesting note is the world oldest Bibles do not have ANY reference to the resurrection of Christ (you can find these online now). The resurrection was added latter along with a few other amendments. There is a beautiful and detailed history of the evolution of the written text that is the bible. <br /><br />Question five shows a little bit of ignorance of how science and arguments work. Question 5 is one statement (not backed up with any ideas).. The pansperma question is asked with such a lack of thought (and sarcasm) I wonder if the writer even researched it for themselves. Rather I picture the writers closed mind screaming “Just have faith”.Joseph McGehanhttp://twitter.com/GodlesslyGaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3333019208769525050.post-8878404739466292252009-10-04T11:17:25.569-04:002009-10-04T11:17:25.569-04:003. Aren’t these scientists and evolutionary theori...3. Aren’t these scientists and evolutionary theorists dead?<br />Yes. Everyone in the human race dies (which now includes some of the first evolutionary theorists). But their works live on in our world. In a sense they have become immortal via what they discovered with science. Now others follow in their foot steps up ladder where they could not reach climb. It’s inspiring and beautiful.<br /><br />I fail to understand the point of this question.. but hey<br /><br />4. How do you explain death?<br /><br />We get old we die. That’s it. Pss we have no measurable soul in the natural world. It’s not comforting, but it is true. We have no way to test this. It would be good if we did. I would be very happy. <br /><br /><br />On an interesting note:<br /><br />Ahem: Chromosomes are capped with telomeres. These are prone to rusting. The DNA degrades.. our instructions ‘blue prints’ degrade and we age.. along with a-few other little variables. If we can stop the rusting of our DNA and if we can repair at a micro scale.. Then we might become immortal (well almost).Joseph McGehanhttp://twitter.com/GodlesslyGaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3333019208769525050.post-79187341046109036872009-10-04T10:51:53.999-04:002009-10-04T10:51:53.999-04:002) How do you know what’s right and what’s wrong? ...2) How do you know what’s right and what’s wrong? If there is a moral law, why is there not a moral law giver? Who determined morality, scientists? <br /><br />The major unstated premise here is: ‘regions god/s tell people what is moral and without religion all humanity would have no morals and would fall into darkness’.<br /><br />The human race as a whole have morals that are integral with our whole human being. These key morals do not need to be taught. They are instinct. For example a love of a Parent for their new born baby. There are moral rules that are apart of us and there are also those defined by human culture. Religion gets it’s morals from both of these. <br /><br />The bible is a testament to an old cultures morals (or lack thereof): Ie woman have no rights, you can have slaves, blacks are evil, you can rape non believers, if you eat shellfish you should be killed. The morals of several thousand years ago were locked into the bible. We must remember when the supreme law giver of the land was the church the name of that age was the dark ages.<br /><br />As a modern culture with ‘modern morals’ we gave: woman rights, blacks rights, we are giving gays rights and all of this was done all against the wishes of the faithful who wanted to be ‘moral’. <br /><br />We the people of this current culture decided and will decide what is moral based on our innate sense of right and wrong and ever evolving culture. In developed countries this is written into law. We have agreements in law that set down what the baselines of these morals. Some countries even go as far to make it clear this is a disconnect between church and state. <br /><br />Science has very little to do with morals. Science is a tool for testing the natural world. The only time science enters into the debate is normally to test when someone has done something immoral. ie blood test from a crime scene.<br /><br />The word of god/s should be perfect thus the laws of god/s should be perfect. The bibles moral laws are deeply flawed and are even contradictory showing their man made origins. Ie <br />Man shall have no other gods (is that an admitting there are other gods). <br />One commandment is not to kill.. Yet another commandments demands you kill; for example if you work the Sabbath you should be put to death. <br /><br /><br />Conclusion 2<br />Humans have an innate sense of right and wrong and in our enlightened aged we have an impartial law system that protects and reprimands those who loose their moral ways. Science has nothing to do with morals. The morals of the the bibles god are deeply flawed and we have overcome the bibles morals and will continue to over come them. We don’t need gods to tell us the way.Joseph McGehanhttp://twitter.com/GodlesslyGaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3333019208769525050.post-56612114361086630452009-10-04T09:15:44.931-04:002009-10-04T09:15:44.931-04:00hehe, I just looked over my grammar.. Sorry it'...hehe, I just looked over my grammar.. Sorry it's a little poor..Joseph McGehannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3333019208769525050.post-66756279541275422072009-10-04T08:58:26.416-04:002009-10-04T08:58:26.416-04:001. Aren’t you saying people who believe in a highe...1. Aren’t you saying people who believe in a higher power are idiots because science can explain why we’re here? Hypocritic[sic].<br /><br />There are several arguments here. A tenuous link between believe in god/s and a link to intelligence, the scientific method and mans origins.<br /><br />There is no link between intelligence and belief in Gods. To call someone stupid because they believe in god/s is a logically fallacy. There are many stupid and intelligent people who are Atheist and Theists.<br /><br />The scientific method is only a tool that allows us to measure the natural world. Both Atheist and Theist’s use it every day and it does not require a person to not believe in god/s. There are many scientists that are blissfully happy Christians, Hindus and Muslims for example (all power to them)<br /><br />The Scientific method has allowed us to measure our natural world. Scientists do this with a completely open mind. A scientist must honor their testing results even if it contradict what they expects to find. If a scientist finds 1 + 1 = 2.. the answer is 2. This can’t be changed by popular vote (ie the public agree it 3 not 2), or being fair, or it not aligning with the supernatural world recored in the bible.<br /><br />The Scientific method gave us evolution and now is considered the fundamental basis of biology. Evolution is supported by many other science’s ie geology, chemistry, laws of theory dynamics etc. However this is only a small part of the equation and only explains how we got from one form to another. It does not attempt to explain “life” ie that spark that made dna to start with. Nor does it even attempt to argue the existence of god/s.<br /><br />Science to date has not proven or tested the origins or the meaning of life<br />Some of what science reports back is in stark disagreement with our old supernatural world of faith. ie Evolution Vrs The talking snake. Tensions between these worlds run very hot. People who observed / proposed; the concept of zero, the earth being a globe, the earth going around the sun, continental drift, and evolution have been murdered and hated verdantly for it. <br /><br />The definition of Faith is to believe. It does not require testing, evaluation, reason, prior observation or your experience. It just requires you do exactly what you are told without question. Faith as a rule is the opposite to science.<br /><br />When faithful try to argue against science in favor of faith they can’t do it with faith they must cross into the world of argument, in the literal sense they have to argue a point and in a way this contradicts faith.<br /><br />Where the term “idiot” or a better worded “unintelligible” comes into the fray is where the simple tools of arguments / science are not understood thus wielded poorly (or worse not used at all). This applies to both the Theist and Atheist. ie if someone argues 1 + 1 = 5 they are wrong. <br /><br />Conclusion 1:<br />Aren’t you saying people who believe in a higher power are idiots because science can explain why we’re here? Hypocritic[sic].<br /><br /><br />No. People are not idiots for believing in God/s. Idiots are idiots because they make unintelligible propositions. This applies to all people including theists and atheists. Science is a tool that can measure the natural world. Science has measured the natural world and in doing so given us evolution. Evolution however is separate to the question ‘why are we here’. This question had not been successfully addressed by science yet. Nor does it have to be.Joseph McGehanhttp://twitter.com/GodlesslyGaynoreply@blogger.com