Are you an atheist?

[Vassago]

I chosen to 2 and have just seen the poll results that most people believe in God. Maybe the answer I chosen is weak for my belief is uncertain. Yes, I have confused by this for a long time. As I grew up in China, my original belief is Buddha which is ashiest and I loved the ways of thinking in Buddha in my childhood. But when I grow up later and maybe in Shanghai, the biggest city in China which is a real big hub for many many goods and thinking in this world, I prefer to believe in God several years ago especially when I thinking in a western manner. So I was confused. But later I get a conclusion that maybe the God and Buddha is two sides of a coin, a coin to ONE truth that they are not confusing. The point is the difference of looking angles. The Buddha thinking dominated China for thousands of years but modern Chinese young people rush to the Church, Why? I think maybe we, Chinese, are merging into the World. The people who believe in God created a world better than the Old China.Why not people live outside of China begin to believe in Buddha if China will be better than other parts of world in a future. Or, people can chose to his belief in his way as the world is becoming a family.
Sorry for my bad English and maybe unrelated to the question.

You have better English than most of the members here, and your response was very relevent to the question.

 

[Vassago]

You're just trolling now, right?

There was no 'Europe' in the Stone Age. Even if it WERE true that there were people here before the Native Americans (who likely crossed in from Siberia), that's nothing like what we did several hundred years ago through lies, backstabbing, and violence.

Exactly!

And Native Americans most likely evolved in some way from the people who traveled through Alaska from Russia's bridge. It's pretty well been decided by the lack of documented historical artifacts before the Native Americans that they were the first to settle on this land, at least of the Homo Sapien variety.

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

 

[Rabbie]

You're just trolling now, right?

There was no 'Europe' in the Stone Age. Even if it WERE true that there were people here before the Native Americans (who likely crossed in from Siberia), that's nothing like what we did several hundred years ago through lies, backstabbing, and violence.

The continent of Europe was certainly in its present place in the stone age which is actually pretty recent in terms of geological timescales. However I doubt if any Homo sapiens travelled across the atlantic then so IMO it is extremely probable that the first Homo sapiens in North America came across the Siberian land bridge from Asia

 

[scott-atkinson]

The continent of Europe was certainly in its present place in the stone age which is actually pretty recent in terms of geological timescales. However I doubt if any Homo sapiens travelled across the atlantic then so IMO it is extremely probable that the first Homo sapiens in North America came across the Siberian land bridge from Asia

That would have been one harsh journey....

I expect the Peter Jackson movie on the subject will be out shortly...

 

[Rabbie]

That would have been one harsh journey....

I expect the Peter Jackson movie on the subject will be out shortly...

Tough people these Homo sapiens

 

[Vassago]

Genetics prove that Native Americans have Asian genes. Harsh journey, yes, but pretty much proven at this point in science.

 

[Mihail]

@youyiyang
I like your intervention here. Thank you for that.
And I like more peoples like you to share with us things from their culture.

We know, more or less, about the religion in our area (based on God and His sun, Jesus) but about nothing about Buddha or Kuran.

Thank you again and I am waiting for more from you.

 

[Dick7Access]

That would have been one harsh journey....

I expect the Peter Jackson movie on the subject will be out shortly...

I never imagine it as a harsh journey. Not one long journey but a little bit at a time. I have always imagined it as tribe A moves a little east because of food source, or because tribe B is hostile, or tribe A's son leaves home and heads east, so and and so on. The latter part of the journey, as history has shown, is certainly substantiated by one tribe being moved over by another hostile tribe in America.

 

[Dick7Access]

Going back to Vassago's post. Advanced humans suppress the less advanced right? Since American Natives were at the top of the food chain prior to the white mans arrival how did they do it? By not suppressing others? Or did they just evolve in a vacuum?

Big bad guns!!!!!!!!!

 

[nanscombe]

Probably the same way as the current occupants with tomahawks.

Original Tomahawk - a type of axe made and used by Native Americans
Modern Tomohawk - a cruise missile built in the United States

 

[Vassago]

Yep. People, as a whole, have always conquered and enslaved those they think are lesser. Current human inhabitants are no different.

 

[Bladerunner]

... unless it is in their interest to control / exploit the lower species.

There are plenty of Science fiction tales of such beings using a few parlour tricks to fool another, or other members of their own, species into slavery.

Stargate SG-1 with its Goa'uld and the Ori.

Star Trek with the God of Sha Ka Ree, from the film Star Trek V.

Then there was 'Q' from Star Trek: The Next Generation who was more mischievous than evil.

Yes and then there was a book of Star Trek ( I forget the name) where 'she' was setting on a lonely beech on some odd and forlorn world watching the entire Universe(s) and its inhabitants being sucked down a black hole. Yes, even civilizations like those of 'Q's (very advanced and not doubt considered Gods in some places) were helpless as suns, moons and planets in their far away galaxy where being torn apart piece by piece. That was when they realized 'GOD' IS out there. It was a very interesting book since most Star-Trek movies and books steered clear of the 'GOD' thing (as this thread puts it).

Have a nice day:>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

The continent of Europe was certainly in its present place in the stone age which is actually pretty recent in terms of geological timescales. However I doubt if any Homo sapiens travelled across the atlantic then so IMO it is extremely probable that the first Homo sapiens in North America came across the Siberian land bridge from Asia

Was no atlantic at that time, all continents were together. Europe was inhabited by H. Sapians about 43,000 years ago.


Have a nice day :>)


Bladerunner

 

[Rabbie]

Was no atlantic at that time, all continents were together. Europe was inhabited by H. Sapians about 43,000 years ago.


Have a nice day :>)


Bladerunner

A quick google search suggests the North Atlantic is about 200 to 180 Million years old. The South Atlantic is a bit younger. So there was a considerable sized Atlantic Ocean 43,000 years ago
.

 

[Dick7Access]

A quick google search suggests the North Atlantic is about 200 to 180 Million years old. The South Atlantic is a bit younger. So there was a considerable sized Atlantic Ocean 43,000 years ago
.

Very interesting, as some claim the earth is millions of years old. My side the Bible Bangers claim it's only 8 to 10 thousand years old. I am not convinced of either side. That being said, however, if the continents where one, than it probable would take million of years to separate. The reason I mention this, is that some times we believe something because that is what we have always heard. I have always accepted without question that the American Indians probable came over on the ice bridge. I guess a possibility is they floated over.

 

[Bladerunner]

A quick google search suggests the North Atlantic is about 200 to 180 Million years old. The South Atlantic is a bit younger. So there was a considerable sized Atlantic Ocean 43,000 years ago
.

Yes, your right. The continents were together as recent as some 200 millions years ago.

 

[Galaxiom]

Was no atlantic at that time, all continents were together. Europe was inhabited by H. Sapians about 43,000 years ago.

Exactly. How else would Lucy's descendants have walked from Africa to North America.

A remarkable lack of scientific general knowledge. It fails even the most basic sense of credibility. If the Atlantic had opened up in 40K years the shores would be moving apart at over a metre per day and be accompanied by continuous earthquakes.

Yet AccessBlaster eschews the theory of Climate Change, presuming that he knows better than scientists who work fulltime on it.

No real surprise from BladeRunner though. His devotion to Biblical mythology already demonstrates a complete lack of any scientific sensibility.

 

[nanscombe]

How and When Did People First Come to North America?

Geography during the last Ice Age limited possible migration routes available to the first humans to colonize the Americas. The preponderance of linguistic and biological evidence indicates that Native Americans most likely originated somewhere in northeastern Asia. Two possible routes have been identified for the first humans to enter the Americas from Northeast Asia: by watercraft along the Northwest Coast, or by a pedestrian terrestrial route across the Bering Land Bridge and then south through central-western Canada. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the mostplausible route for the initial colonization of the Americas may have been along the Northwest Coast, beginning possibly as early as 14,000 radiocarbon years ago (16,300 calendar years BP).
...

 

[youyiyang]

@youyiyang
I like your intervention here. Thank you for that.
And I like more peoples like you to share with us things from their culture.

We know, more or less, about the religion in our area (based on God and His sun, Jesus) but about nothing about Buddha or Kuran.

Thank you again and I am waiting for more from you.

hi, Mihail,
Thank you for your interesting in Buddha.
Buddhism was originated from India and introduced to China at about 67 AD due to the communication from monks in both countries. Nowadays most Chinese people have no relief in fact, but the Buddhism is admired by most Chinese because it was selected by the governors in ancient time as an official belief. And it is still very popular by common Chinese people.
The Buddhism as I understand is about "coincidence" and "cause". With cause then you have the consequence. And your consequence is originated by your cause. If you plant good cause at first then you have good consequence at last and vise verse. And also Buddhism tells the people that everything is emptiness or nothing. For example, you may be attracted by a pretty girl, but the appearance of a pretty girl is seen as emptiness or nothing in a eye of a Buddha. Even the mountain and sea, these great natural materials are also emptiness or nothing in a eye of a Buddha while your spirit is the only real thing. If a people believe in Buddhism, the relationship between this people and the Buddha is not as son to father or servant to lord but student to teacher. So, everybody can be a Buddha. Even the inferior creatures can be a Buddha because they also have wise minds. When a people dies, then all of what he does in this life make him what he will be in the afterlife. For example, if he committed crime then he will be in a Hell and he may be an inferior animal in his afterlife. But if he did lots of good deeds in his life then he will be in a superior position in his afterlife, which forms a life circle.
As a people do things with his own abilities, like what he knows because of his own capacities of understanding so in the end there is no God in the sky but himself. So, Buddha is atheist.

 

[Galaxiom]

I'm surprise you call it a theory "Climate Change" it's more like a religion isn’t it?

No. It is supported by a massive body of scientific work. The faith based position is the one that denies that humans are causing climate change. It is the position you support without a shred of evidence, much less intelligent analysis.

Why did the scientist change the very popular Global Warming moniker to the less flashy "Climate Change"?

Climate Change more fully describes the effect. It isn't just about warming the temperature. Whatever the name it is still the same thing.

Do I believe the global temperature has risen of course I do.

Many who previously denied the change was happening at all have now moved to accepting it. So much evidence became too hard to deny. So they move on to the "its a natural cycle" mantra. As that defence collapses some have moved to "warmer is better".

Has it risen in the past? The answer must be yes. Thousands of years before man’s industrial revolution, glaciers expanded and retracted. The ice age came and went, sea levels rise and retracted.

Yes it has changed before but never at the current rate. The major drivers and the cyclic climate mechanisms are fairly well understood and none of them can explain the observed change other than the huge increase in atmospheric CO2.

It used to be a scientific fact that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth.

Rubbish. These were religious doctrines.

In the 50’s they thought it was possible a detonation of a nuclear device in atmosphere would cause our atmosphere to catch fire and kill everybody on the planet.

Who is "they"? Certainly not genuine scientists. Probably similar to the fools that recently argued the LHC would create a miniature black hole and swallow the Earth.

In the 70’s my mother would read books on “The Coming Ice Age”.

That was what was understood at the time. Indeed, until the massive release of CO2 the planet had been cooling slowly but steadily. We are at a time in the cycles of glaciation at the end of an interglacial period. We should heading back to glaciers. This is one aspect that makes a complete mockery of the claim that we are just experiencing a natural cycle. Temperatures are going entirely the wrong way compared to the history of the cycles.

Global warming is a global tax a way to take dollars from one hypocrite’s pocket and put it in another’s.

In my experience debating with deniers it invariably becomes clear that for most, the main motivation for doing nothing is plain greed. Some people wouldn't sacrifice a cent to do something about a problem they see as belonging to our grandchildren even though we are the ones creating it.

Quite pathetic really.

Something I always ask deniers. What is the safe level of CO2 that would not cause climate change? I have never received an answer.