> First thing, that google gives me
the joke being that athiests energetically refute that athiesm is a religion.
few others do
Ancient Member
> First thing, that google gives me
the joke being that athiests energetically refute that athiesm is a religion.
few others do
"Whip me!" pleads the adom player. The rng replies... "No."
Ancient Member
I'd assume the atheists that choose to present their beliefs publicly do so because they live in a country dominated religious people that often make political or personal choices that adversely affect them.Originally Posted by gut
Leaders only rule by the consent of the people.
No, atheists aren't required to believe in the Big Bang. They aren't required to believe anything. Atheists don't believe in any gods. That's it. It is possible to be an atheist who doesn't believe in either a god or the Big Bang--they may simply not know, or not care, about how the universe came into being.
Here's a nice paper on the evolution of fruit that might give you some answers.
The best model we currently to describe the early universe is the Big Bang Theory. Planets are believed to form from the remains of accretion disks of stars. It is possible that we may never know the exact origin of the universe. That doesn't imply that a god must have made it.
Hoping to win with every class, doomed. Archer, Barbarian, Bard, Beastfighter, Druid, Elementalist, Farmer, Fighter, Monk, and ULE Priest down.
Ancient Member
> I'd assume the atheists that choose to present their beliefs publicly do so because they live in a country dominated religious people that often make political or personal choices that adversely affect them
Indeed. This guy isn't preaching, only, um, asserting his belief
that folk are annoying.
> Leaders only rule by the consent of the people.
iirc, romans didn't convert the ceasar to christianity. my (admittedly swiss
cheese) memory says it was vice versa, but ceasar converted do to logic
> It is possible to be an atheist who doesn't believe in either a god or the Big Bang
Please allow me to summarize: "I don't know, but I know it wasn't god."
how can one admit to not knowing, then claim to know?
> Here's a nice paper on the evolution of fruit that might give you some answers
I never claimed to have questions. To my surprise, I did actually look at that
linked paper. I saw nowhere in there an explaination as to why you first claimed
it "doesn't make sense" for fruity plants to evolve before animals, and later
claim the opposite by asserting it was logical for plants to continually evolve
fruits until animals evolved to eat them.
"Whip me!" pleads the adom player. The rng replies... "No."
Ancient Member
Yes, people are annoying. Is this a surprise? People can be annoying about all sorts of things - politics, economics, guns, health care reform, etc. They may even approach these subjects with religious fervour. That doesn't make them religions though.
Though I do like how you seem to be defining religion as "being bat-shit crazy about something".
Well it wasn't Caesar, it was Constantine, and it was for a mix of political reasons. He then converted the empire to Christianity by force and spread it across Europe with even more force (with some lovely perversion of the original faith to make it more appealing to the masses).iirc, romans didn't convert the ceasar to christianity. my (admittedly swiss
cheese) memory says it was vice versa, but ceasar converted do to logic
"I don't know how a fridge works, but I'm pretty sure it's not the work of an invisible spaghetti monster." - is this a religious belief?Please allow me to summarize: "I don't know, but I know it wasn't god."
how can one admit to not knowing, then claim to know?
Platinum Edition ADOMer
http://gamesofgrey.com - check out my roguelikes!
Ancient Member
Well, let's see. He's not advocating mass murder ("Death to fags"), suppression of rights ("Abortions are evil"), intolerance ("Atheists/Muslims/whoever are evil"), radically detrimental changes to public policy ("Shariah law should have equal voice to civil law"). At worst, he's advocating for the death of someone who is already dead, which is crazy, but little more.
There's an important difference here that you're overlooking. It is not the same thing to say "I don't believe in God" and "I know that God does not exist". The former position only states that you are unconvinced by the evidence presented by theists that there is a God. The latter position explicitly states that you have sufficient knowledge of the universe that allows you to completely rule out the existence of something. I can say "I am unconvinced by evidence for the existence of either God or the Big Bang" without saying that I know that such things do not exist.
As I said, it doesn't make sense for fruity plants to evolve before animals because the purpose of fruit is to transmit seeds. It works like this: animal eats fruit. Fruit contains seeds that are indigestable by animal. When animal defecates, the seeds can then grow, in an area that will be separated from the parent plant by however far the animal moved. In the absence of the animal, the fruit is not beneficial to the plant--it's detrimental because the plant needs to invest energy in making the fruit. Hence, in areas where there are no animals around, plants lacking fruit or fruit-like structures will be selected for over those that have them. That said, it is relatively unlikely that such a situation ever would have occurred: plants and animals moved onto land ~500 Ma ago (animals first, most likely) whereas flowering and fruit-bearing plants did not appear until around 130 Ma ago. The delay is presumably due, in part, to the fact that the first plants that moved onto land were algal in nature, not yet having roots, leaves, or seeds, without which the production of fruit would be exceptionally difficult.
Hoping to win with every class, doomed. Archer, Barbarian, Bard, Beastfighter, Druid, Elementalist, Farmer, Fighter, Monk, and ULE Priest down.
Senior Member
But bearing fruit is not a disadvantage to the plant, investing energy into producing nutrients surrounding the seed, instead of spreading seed w/o nutrients? Is that not what we do? Most life comes from eggs, but what are they except a seed and a source of nutrients for said seed?
What happens when a being with godlike power has no concept of limits and unfettered creativity? Anything.
?/0
Ancient Member
To the best of my knowledge, plant seeds do not function in this manner. Certainly, plant seeds do not require the energy stored within the fruit--if you plant an seed in the ground, and it gets sufficient water and sunlight, you'll might get an apple tree. You don't need to plant the whole apple, nor do you need to supply it with external nutrients. That said, animal excrement is also excellent fertilizer. Using the fruit-for-food method, the plants not only get a means of transporting their seeds much further than other methods, they also get pre-fertilized soil for all of their seeds.
Hoping to win with every class, doomed. Archer, Barbarian, Bard, Beastfighter, Druid, Elementalist, Farmer, Fighter, Monk, and ULE Priest down.
Ancient Member
Trees can live extremely long life spans and have natural defenses like a thick bark. They ingest a lot of energy through a large network of leaves and nutrients through deep or wide roots absorbing water. Every year during a warm season, they invest the energy they are absorbing into preserving its genes by producing many seeds contained within their fruit.
Now this fruit can be used as nutrients for the birth of a new tree from this seed pod but then the child will be competing with the parent for ground water and light. Sometimes, these new plants get lucky when the parent tree dies and enriches the ground with its past nutrients but that would mean the plant is wasting its adolescence and adulthood just fucking other plants for no good reason, just giving his last offspring a chance at contributing his genes to future generations.
JellySlayer already explained that energy rich fertilizers, such as rotting matter or feces, is an excellent source of the nutrients that a seed needs to grow. Animal eats fruit, walks around, takes dumb. Voila, perfectly delivered new tree in a new location where it can contribute to the gene pool.
You don't have to be an atheist to know this.
QFT
I said it before, and I'll say it again. If I knew scripture like you, I'd prolly be an athiest too.. -gut
／l、
（ﾟ､ ｡ ７
l、 ~ヽ
じしf_, )ノ
Ancient Member
I'm glad we've established, once again, there are crazies on both sides. (Though I'm really not sure how being pro-life is being in favor of the suppression of rights.)
Ancient Member
> Yes, people are annoying. Is this a surprise?
Never indicated I would be surprised at the existance of annoying people.
Was rather clearly, and in context of topic, providing pictoral evidence
of athiestic preaching. There are numerous appologies/excuses that can
be made for this. The fist was that it doesn't happen at all, hence:
> Atheism is not a religion.
The second is that it does happen, sometimes, but only as a last resort, hence:
> atheists that choose to present their beliefs publicly do so because they live in a country dominated religious
The third is that, OK, maybe they are doing it out of a desire to 'spread the word'
but at least our preachers aren't as bad as YOUR preachers, hence:
> Well, let's see. He's not advocating mass murder ("Death to fags"),
The fact remains though, that athiesm may not be worshipped by some, but it is by others.
When it gets to the point where one's internet ADOM forum sig contains insults toward
the idea of god, or those who respect god, that is when you know you are a worshipper
of the athiestic religion. Have fun spreading the word, my brothers
> it wasn't Caesar, it was Constantine
The practical distinction escapes me.
> and it was for a mix of political reasons
"...but not logic!"
> He then converted the empire to Christianity by force
Which I find sub-optimal, yet preferable. The old religions accepted murdering
christians for the crime of being christian. There can not now, and never could
have been a law based on the teachings of Jesus that provided the same acceptance
of murdering other religious folk.
> (with some lovely perversion of the original faith
if it wasn't the teachings of christ, was it really christianity at that point?
> I don't know how a fridge works
I do. It is not a theory to which I worship as the "gut fridge theory", which
has monumental holes in it. It is 100% provable fact.
> I can say "I am unconvinced by evidence for the existence of either God or the Big Bang" without saying that I know that such things do not exist.
We are clearly talking about different athiests here. Maybe I'll call the guys to
which I'm referring as antithiests from now on.
> As I said, it doesn't make sense for fruity plants to evolve before animals
Then please explain this previous code snippet to me:
as you seem to be indicating that it is perfectly natural for exactly that to happen.
> It works like this: animal eats fruit.
Yes, having farmed before in my life, I am somewhat aware of how ^ that works
> In the absence of the animal, the fruit is not beneficial to the plant
then I will ask again as to why you claim it makes sense in above pic
> The delay is presumably due, in part, to the fact that the first plants that moved onto land were algal in nature, not yet having roots
a brave choice for a rootless plant, moving to land...
Last edited by gut; 11-26-2010 at 04:39 AM.
"Whip me!" pleads the adom player. The rng replies... "No."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
