pantheory

I forgot to say when in Rome do as the Romans, the meaning is that you must follow the laws of the land -- and for me this also means not to trespass on others happiness, as you added.

I expect my opinion is a little different from most atheists. I think the most important thing in life is that you are happy and that you function well your entire life. Of course if you can do so as an atheist or non-believer. I expect that most would agree that it's better to know the truth than to believe a fairy tail like those taught by all religions.

I understand your point. I do my I understand your point. I do my best here but all that I can see here is a number of well-meaning Christians trying to convert us. As you know their only tool for argument IMO is how they personally feel, generally not related to religious justification. I'm pretty good with people but only make short term friends because most realize in time that we have little in common. I have one long term Christian friend who truly believes, we only kid about religion since he has always known that I'm a devout non-confrontational atheist. When we talk about such things as fornication he says to me in jest, I'll pray for you. My sisters are religious but would never dare talk religion with me because they know that I would explain non-confrontational things about religion that they would never want to hear. My mother knew I was an atheist and was very disappointed concerning that aspect of me. When she was mad at me when I got older, she would refer to me as an educated fool. She always believed that college education caused me to lose my faith. I never would have told her that her soft request of me to do personal home study of the bible as a teenager is how I lost my faith when I was still in high school. Especially Genesis and Revelations in light of modern science were obvious to me as being no better than fairy tales. My dad was not very religious, but did believe in God I think, but certainly did not like to talk about religion. I think he was simply a cynic concerning religion. Both of my parents were also college educated. I still go to church once in a while, but no church, synagogue, or temple in particular. I go on an invitation basis only once in a blue moon. I had an older Indian friend for many decades, now passed away. I would often go to the Indian temple with him when we were together to socialize. He was also an atheist but always believed in Hindu traditions such as Yoga and their other social practices. I once regularly went to a Chinese Christian church home study group every Friday night. I would sing and socialize, and study Mandarin Chinese. In time none would dare talk to me of religion because they would only hear very gentle things that they never would want to hear. I went there so that I wouldn't go to the bar every Friday night, which was becoming a bad habit that I was trying to break by being expected somewhere else But I do have the character flaw of secretly feeling like laughing at, or sometimes feeling sorry for those who openly profess religious ideas and beliefs.

More like "alittle" weight, about 20 lbs. of unwanted pounds.

I have some but they don't fit me anymore.

Historically Neanderthals have been portrayed as looking very different from modern humans today. But that view of them has changed since then because of our genetic analysis of them and more modern looking skulls of Neanderthal children. When older, most Neanderthal men probably appeared more brutish than most men today, but when younger some may have looked like this, similar to the appearance of Scandinavians today, with blond, light brown, or reddish hair, and colored eyes -- and maybe ever more so when they were a Neanderthal hybrid with homo-sapiens. https://www.eupedia.com/europe/neanderthal_facts_and_myths.shtml

This figure of of 98.5% can be somewhat deceiving. What this figure actually says is that of all the known DNA from the genus Homo (modern humans), that 98.5% of these genes are the same between us and Neanderthals. When you take all of our total DNA, chimpanzees and bonobos share 98.8% the same DNA as us. Humans share about 85% of our total DNA with mice, and we share about 60% of our DNA with bananas There is about a .5% genetic variation between all living homo-sapiens. and about 1% difference between us and all past homo sapiens. So there is only a .5% difference between all past homo sapiens and modern human homo-sapien sapiens. . As indicated above, this is the same variation as we see between modern humans today. So Neanderthals were very similar to modern humans concerning their DNA. If you saw one today walking alive we may not be able to tell the difference in some cases. Neanderthals had what is called a ginger gene meaning they had reddish or blondish hair and blue of green eyes. but they were shorter, stockier and more muscular as adults. https://www.eupedia.com/europe/neanderthal_facts_and_myths.shtml https://sciencing.com/animals-share-human-dna-sequences-8628167.html

Although science involves a kind of knowledge, the real science is in the understanding and interpretation of the so-called knowledge. For instance, to know of hydrogen is a gaseous substance at Earth temperatures, that can be used for fuel is one thing, but to know that it primarily consists of one proton and one electron in its atomic form is another. To know that it commonly also exists as a molecule containing two hydrogen atoms is additional knowledge. Science theory is not knowledge. A theory can be supported by a great many interpretations of observations, even so these interpretations can totally be wrong as well as the entire theory. An example of a theory that is supported by a mountain of evidence that cannot be contradicted because of the weight of the evidence, is the theory of natural selection, the primary backbone of biological evolution theory, Another theory that many scientists claim as fact is the Big Bang theory. Much observational evidence is asserted to support the theory, yet the theory is neither knowledge or fact, and IMO the entire theory, and every aspect of it, will be replaced within a decade or two IMO. Another example of goofed-up theory is Quantum Mechanics (QM). QM is a great statistical system for predicting probabilities in the quantum realm, but nearly everything one could ever read about it is entirely wrong IMO. So in truth it involves little science, instead it is just a mathematical system of making correct predictions. When and if such theories are replaced, will science change? Of course not, the scientific method controls science, not beliefs and theory. Scientific understandings if somewhat close to being correct, can produce great technologies, but if not, wrong theories will be replaced. Science can be trusted to eventually replace bad theories with better ones. As for all religions, they belong in the same box as Greek Mythology, something to privately laugh at, or enjoy as a fictional read if you like that kind of stuff.

Yeah, why believe something that you have little knowledge of. only because of your family's or society's beliefs? Nearly all of my relatively small religious studies were done before the age of 15, and have studied little since then, countless decades past.. Even so, I bet I know more of the Bible than 90% of professed Christians as a non-confrontational atheist. Religion IMO is too ridiculous to argue about. A few concise explanations should suffice if anyone is interested.

I think that to be a good Christian one would need to know a lot about the bible, as well as faith as to its validity. To be a firmly-confirmed atheist I believe also requires a lot of knowledge about biology and cosmology. Darwin's answers are great, and modern day evolution theory explains nearly everything living. But Big Bang cosmology, on the other hand, is entirely BS IMO and can't answer any of the 'why' questions that can be simply answered by some other theories. So there is a mountain of undeniable evidence to support biological evolution, but no accepted theory as yet to support abiogenisis -- although there are a number of different related hypothesis. When the BB model is overturned IMO, those atheists that understand how science works will remain confirmed atheists. Going back to religion will only be for the foolish and those lacking fundamental understandings concerning how science works.

A lot of fakin goin on by someones , NOT

I don't believe intelligent aliens created Earth life, but I don't believe that's the question. The main question I believe is where did intelligence life of any kind come from in the first place? I believe there could only be one logical answer, abiogenisis IMO.

If not panspermia, abiogenesis, god-did-it, aliens did it, then who or what created life? We know that robots, AI, could not spontaneously arise. As an atheist I see no other alternative to the beginnings of life arising other than by abiogenesis over billions of years. And if aliens did it then how did they originate, ad infinitum.

I think that most every atheist like myself would agree with what you have written above concerning their beliefs also. My comments regard numbers 8 through 10. 8 ) I believe that it's both intellectually honest and well intended to expose what truths can be demonstrated about the bible and Christianity, through counter apologetics. Although intellectually honest, exposure of non-truths could depend on the circumstances. To openly discuss such things without invitation may not always be well-intended. It depends on the person. When not invited, it can also be perceived as being overly aggressive. 9 ) I believe that as painful as it may be at times, ............--- painful to some who speak it, and some who listen to it, or both. Some day religion in general will be laughed at by almost everybody, as we presently laugh at Greek mythology IMO. 10 ) I believe that humanity doesn't need the fluff and circus show of religion in order for people to do what's right, be decent, and get along. Although in our society and most others, there is a common understanding of what is moral and what is not, much of today's morality has religious underpinnings. The cultural understanding is that for society in general, we must not trespass or take advantage of others without their consent. But most atheists are also aware that in the end, all morality is subjective IMO.

Yes, any panspermia proposal as being the beginnings of Earth-Life, must originally have started as abiogenisis. I would add an additional codicil to advise. Don't believe in science either unless it makes sense to you. If it doesn't make sense be Leary of it IMO. Of course any real science, even if wrong, has at least some logic to it, as opposed to the god-did-it version. Concerning abiogenisis, my primary concern is how complex beginning-life here on Earth appears to have been.