octave

True that is why we need more of a user pays system. I have a idea, lets gets everybody to pay $7 when they visit the doctor.lol

Having spent many many years paying my medicare levy and not using the system, but then last year having this system give me life saving and expensive treatment, I have come to realize that what I have been paying for all these years was the a wonderful system on standby for when I needed it. It is a little like the fire brigade, I pay to keep it running although I have never needed to call it, I know it is there ready to help me.

This is why I would argue that aviation should not be totally user pays because society derives a benefit from flight schools and airports etc.

They are not going to avoid going to the doctors over $7. Besides I never go to the doctors but I still have to pay the medicare levy every year.

1. The $7 is not going towards the deficit it is going into funding research.

2. It is also said that it is supposed to send a price signal, this would seem to be in order to deter visits to the doctor.

If you are going to pull money out of the medical system the worst place to do that is at the front end before people end up in hospital which is much more costly.

In my case the $7 is on top $130 specialist bills (of which about $30 is refunded) 2 ultrasounds per year plus blood tests and 4 prescriptions at $42 each per month, now I am not whinging about this but I just get a bit cranky when people say it is only $7.

You're as bad as Octave with his virus - the HIV virus is still the HIV virus. It may well be adapting just as we adapt, it may even be changing, as some of us are black, some are white, some have round eyes, but it's not going to turn into a fish, lizard or bird.

Turbs you talk as if my assertion about viruses is wacky pseudoscience, but pick up any high school or university text book and I think you will find that the evidence is solid and most importantly peer reviewed.

I can't think of anything more dreary than spending eternity with my dead relatives. :(

Some necessarily do, and flaunt it, and ridicule religion though.

Do atheists flaunt their atheism any more than religious people flaunt their religion?

Questioning a religious persons pronouncments on science is not ridicule.

That reminds me, after some of you atheists endlessly demanding proofs, I'm yet to see any proof from you that God doesn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

The interesting thing with all energy work, including divining and dowsing is that you don't have to believe in it, or believe that you can do it to be able to do it, you just have to be prepared to give it a try.

I seem to remember this test in the 1980s

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/australian-skeptics-divining-test/

So the question I have; can you be an Atheist and believe in a pre and post existence after life? Chris

from the Oxford Dictionary

Atheist - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:

I would imagine atheists would tend not too believe in pre or post existence, I personally don't. By the strict definition of the word you could believe in an afterlife but not a god.

You make an important point Facthunter; atheists have to grapple with the point that after they die they aren't going anywhere except the cemetery or the crematorium - they don't get a seat on the bus.

I suspect you probably would not be an atheist if you could not cope with the idea of non existence after death (or for that matter before conception).

We don't get a seat on the bus because we don't accept that the bus exists.

God-haters like yourself have been around a long time. In other news water is wet. The sky is blue.

What makes you think I hate your god? What I feel about your god is probably similar to what you feel about Thor or Hermes, in relation to these gods you are probably agnostic or even atheist. I am sure if we compared a list of gods we both don't believe in it would be identical except that my list would have one extra god.

An extract from the article posted by Bex:" how could they possibly have landed a man on the moon?

Shhh Don, you'll wake the moon conspiracists up

You would increase the circumference by an insignificant amount by raising the water 5 miles. The depth of the atmosphere above the new sea level would not substantially change, but all of the water that magically appeared would change the mass of the earth significantly throwing it into a new orbit, and causing all manner of unforseen consequences. Nev

Quite interesting, I did come accross this : http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm

Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood waters; and it boils off into space.

Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In fact, ice cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) which can be geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and relative gas ratios; and these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, far more than the supposed 4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major loss of atmosphere, atmospheric fractionation (lighter gasses (oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc.) would have boiled off first in the flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained with heavier gasses (argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.)), and massive extinctions from such global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores.

Would it? The water would displace the atmosphere which would then have to `spread out' due to the increased circumference of the earth, consequently reducing in height to maintain the same volume, resulting in reduced density and pressure at the water surface.rgmwa

mmmm you could be right, might have to research that one, this is what I love about science.

You believe the atmosphere was compressed into the waters?

Yes I am guilty of a slip of logic here, of course the air pressure would be greater. Therefore I am happy to take on new information and modify my statement.

However a literal interpretation of Noah's ark (I don't know where you stand on this) is flawed on so many fronts.

Noah's flood as high as Everest 29000 ft, did they carry oxygen? hypoxia?

.I don't have a problem if an atheist says he doesn't believe in God, but none of them in this thread have just left it at that.

I don't have a problem if a theist says he believes in God, but none of them in this thread have just left it at that.

This thread started with a "aren't atheists smug and stupid" joke, this caused comment on both sides of the fence.

As a non believer or atheist I do not have an agenda to go around trying to convert believers. Don't confuse reacting to believers assertions with an agenda of conversion. Whilst no doubt there are atheists who do have an agenda, I don't recall any atheist missionaries knocking on my door.

Personal beliefs are not something I can argue against but assertions of fact are always up to challenge. If someone does not believe in a particular scientific theory that is fine, no problem but if they then go on to assert that said scientific theory has been discredited then that can be challenged, it is fair in this circumstance to ask for the evidence behind the assertion.

As an example the assertion that there are no transitional fossils, I posted a link with a huge list, I was hoping for a well argued rebuttal and all I got was a restating of the original proposition.

Historically religion in this country has had a privileged position, as we become a more open and enlightened these areas will of course be questioned. Don't confuse the erosion historic privilege with some kind of oppression. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

After being told about inaccuracies in the Bible, you've used literal quotes of nonsensical passages to try to do just that.

 

.

This is very frustrating. I don't know any atheist who makes a habit of quoting scripture for the sake of it. The only time I would quote scripture would be in response to someone quoting it to me. Personally I would much rather be reading the latest issue on New Scientist than trawling the bible, but if a believer tells me I shouldn't do or think x because it says in the bible then I feel entitled to say "but doesn't it also say you should do or think y". I find it amazing that the word of god is so open to interpretation.

This Decade (2000 til now to be a bit wider) has been cooler than the last (1990 t0 2000), please try to keep up.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

relax folks it's just satire

genetic change is always for the worse; there is always a loss of genetic information in change

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html#.VFxA2PmUfTp

Other examples of mutations being beneficial are viruses that jump species (Avian Flu, HIV etc) Flu viruses that mutate (this is why flu vaccines change from year to year). Also consider penicillin resistance. These are beneficial for the organism itself (but not for us).

The problem with this debate is that religion requires faith but faith does not necessarily require evidence, that is the nature of faith. I do not have "faith" in the theory of evolution rather I accept that it is supported by the majority of the evidence and by the majority of scientists. The theory is important in the field of medicine and especially in immunology.

I think the idea that acceptance of the theory of evolution causes atheism is rather overstated, as I said earlier I realized I was an atheist (or agnostic) before I even knew what those words meant and what evolution meant in fact I can remember the exact moment, ironically it was at sunday school.

Despite posting many links to detailed information no one has really challenged the detail. The idea that the theory has been tossed out must surely generate scholarly papers etc but despite asking for links to such papers or articles there has been precious little. I did read GGs link (and other links when provided) https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/

I found this quote interesting:

"What are we to do when the current consensus among scientists is at odds with the teachings of Scripture? Have we learned the lesson of history? Are we going to reject (or modify our “interpretation” of) the straightforward teachings of Scripture in light of the latest secular scientific claims? Or shall we trust that the Bible will prevail again as it always has in the past?"

This is why I prefer science to religion, I am excited by the fact the science gets modified as evidence becomes available. The cosmology I learned as a youth has changed with discovery. I would be thrilled by new discoveries of fossils out of sequence or contradictory DNA evidence.

The fact that people believe in a god is fine, I can't believe in a god without sufficient evidence, I guess I could pretend to but I guess that wouldn't count. Perhaps god made me an atheist just to test the patience of believers!

Anyway I think I am done. I have tried debate in a gentle and respectful way so I hope that I have not offended anyone (although this was started by unnecessary "aren't atheists smug and stupid" joke.

Anyway slightly off topic but here is a cool clip about gravity (not controversial ...... hopefully)

It should be accepted by all of us that a scientific claim requires evidence to back it up

The problem is there is evidence, it is simply incorrect for you to say there is no evidence. On what basis other than your biblical beliefs do you make this claim? We know that viruses mutate, the flu vaccine given last year is different than the one given this year because we know viruses mutate, they evolve. You can keep saying it is all rubbish but that does not make it so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_evolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_01

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

with advances in science and genetic understanding it can now be seen that any significant species change beyond 'natural selection' (selective breeding) it is utterly impossible,

Where "can it now be seen"? What are these advances why can I not find them in the literature ?

Can you provide me with good solid scientific evidence that the theory has been disproven? Where is the debate in the literature? Where are the medical schools and universities abandoning the theory? In what way has the genetic evidence been discredited?

My atheism no more depends on the theory of evolution than it does on the theory of relativity, it has no bearing on it at all. If the theory were truly to be overturned tomorrow it would not mean I would suddenly believe in god (wouldn't know which one to choose anyway)

I have no problem with other peoples belief in god as long as long as it is not imposed on me either through law, education or the trashing of science (without good evidence).

I also don't mind if you personally don't believe the evidence but to say it has been discredited within science and education is a testable claim that would require evidence.

Since ancient civilizations on earth, apparently without the aid of aliens knew the earth was round, knew it's dimensions, ........

Yes and I am saying that it is not necessarily amazing that early humans through observation could work out that the earth was spherical. What I am saying is that there is no mystery that requires aliens or a hollow moon. This is a criticism of the book, not you (unless you believe this stuff)

I wasn't tempted to buy the book but from memory they found that dimensions on the moon matched ancient dimensions on earth and they hypothesise. Since ancient civilizations on earth, apparently without the aid of aliens knew the earth was round, knew it's dimensions, mapped the star system and probably what they could see of the moon,

The idea that early humans could not have known that the earth was spherical without outside help is just not right, the evidence would have been available to early observers see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Indian_astronomy

It seems to me to be a huge stretch of Occams Law to satisfy our incredulity of early knowledge by hypothesising time travel and the construction of an artificial moon (not that moons are rare in this solar system).

By the way this book is freely available online https://contraeducacao.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/who-built-the-moon_-knight-christopher.pdf

To make it easier to understand the sequence of some of the things we have been discussing, here's a timeline of some events.

Atheists will be happy to know that science creeps in here with the carbon dating of the so-called "Shroud of Turin", so you can cross that one off your list.

 

 

 

BC

 

28,000 First evidence of religious practice

 

12,000 Grindstones used for flour production

 

9,000 Animal husbandry developed in Mesopotamia

 

5,500 Irrigation systems used in Sumer

 

3,400 First walled cities in Egypt

 

3,250 Earliest known writing in Sumer

 

3,200 Secret Egyptian king-making ceremony

 

3,000 First Egyptian hieroglyphics

 

1500-1450 Most Probable period for the Exodus under Moses

 

972 Solomon builds temple to Yahweh on Temple Mount in Jerusalem

 

300 – 100 AD Dead Sea scrolls written, discovered at Qumran Caves between 1946 and 1956 and are still being translated. About 40% relate to the Hebrew Bible.

 

187 Earliest date for Qumran Community

 

6 Probable date of birth of Jesus

 

AD

 

0 – 400 Gnostic Gospels written (discovered Nag Hamadi, Egypt 1947)

 

27 Jesus spend three years at Qumran

 

31 Jesus leaves Qumran, held to be king of Jews

 

32 John the Baptist beheaded; Jesus assumes priestly as well as kingly messiahships

 

33 Crucifixion of Jesus

 

37 Mandaeans driven out of Mesopotamia by Saul

 

60 Saul becomes Paul and invents Christianity

 

63 Probable date of confrontation between James and Paul

 

64 Killing of James the Just at the Temple

 

70 Destruction of Qumran, Jerusalem and Herod’s Temple by the Romans

 

325 Council of Nicaea established by Emperor Constantine

 

1008 Oldest surviving text of the Hebrew Bible

 

June 14, 1099 Jerusalem was captured by the Crusaders

 

1118 Order of Poor Knights of Christ and the Temple of Solomon founded

 

1120 Templars find hidden scrolls

 

1306 The arrest of all Jews in France

 

1292 Jacques de Maloy elected last Grand Master of the Templars

 

Fri Oct 13, 1307 Knights Templar were attacked by King Phillip of France, some escaped to Scotland, Fleet escaped never seen again, signs they made it to America, others escaped and founded Switzerland

 

1307 Jacques de Maloy crucified and Shroud of Turin created

 

1308 Arrival of Templar fleet in America

 

1440-1490 Building of the Chapel of Roslyn near Edinburgh

 

1534 English split with Roman Catholic Church

 

1604-1611 King James Bible translation

 

1799 Rosetta stone found, enabling Egyptian hieroglyphics to be read

 

1945 Discovery of Nag Hammadi cache of Gnostic gospels

 

1947 Discovery of Dead Sea scrolls at Qumran near Jerusalem

 

1951 Excavation of Qumran starts

 

1955 The copper scroll opened and deciphered as an inventory of hidden treasures

 

1988 Carbon dating of Turin Shroud establishes its earliest possible origin to be 1260

 

1991 First public access to full collection of the Dead Sea scrolls

 

Black: Source “The Hiram Key” Red: Other sources

If this is the "The Hiram Key" written by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas it seems to be largely about Freemasonry also it does not really inspire confidence when you look at Christopher Knights other books such as "Who Built the Moon". For an interview with Christopher Knight http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/who-built-the-moon-an-interview-with-christopher-knight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Knight_(author)

Only God, a wonderful designer who created all the laws of physics and chemistry, the motions of galaxies (and the millions and millions of stars, planets and moons that make up these galaxies), as well as the tiniest parts that make up everything we can see, touch and hold with the building blocks (atoms) which themselves are composed of a nucleus and electron(s) orbiting around them. It takes a huge leap of faith that all this came (a) without a designer; and (b) from nothing. For instance, if the big bang caused the whole universe to come into being from a piece of matter the size of a basketball, where did this matter come from? Ultimately, for me, it is easier to believe in God making all this "by the word of his power", all from nothing ....rather than that everything came from nothing without any designer.

80knts as an atheist I have absolutely no problem with what you said, it is not necessarily at odds with the evidence however this is where I would respectfully differ from you in that I know there are interesting hypotheses on this (see Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe from nothing) but let me toss those ideas aside for the sake of this discussion. I can say I don't know how the Universe started but for me at least to explain it by saying there must have been a creator just shifts the question up one level, it is quite fair to ask how the creator was created. We could say that the creator has always existed but then why not say the universe has always existed or at least the potential for the universe to exist. To explain one unknown by superimposing another unknown on top of it does not satisfy my curiosity. I don't mind that we don't know how the universe came into existence, it is something we may discover or it may be unknowable.

Octave, I, in good faith gave you enough material to follow up which would keep you busy for months, particularly things that were FACT and on this theory you keep talking about, so if you're not prepared to do a little work to educate yourself, you lose your credibility when you keep on asking other people to research it for you.

I don't want you to do research for me. I was asking GG to support his assertion that modern science had disproved the theory, this is a bold claim that does require evidence. I know for a fact the within science and education the theory is still the cornerstone of Biology and other disciplines. If you and GG don't accept the evidence that is fine but it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that the theory of evolution is a quaint old idea that has been superseded. All I am asking is for this assertion to be supported with evidence because I do know for sure that it is still being taught within Australian Universities within Biology and in the Medical Science Degree. Again you can say that you don't accept the evidence but you can't say that it is doubted amongst scientists without evidence.