A Question for Atheists

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
A Question for Atheists

 Since many of you revel in your perceived rational superiority when compared to theists please answer the following question: How does nothing produce something?

To me its seems more rational to hold theist views on creation. We at least have an answer. Now, many will not accept any notion of creation but its the only logical conclusion. Give me your answer to the question and many will see the irrationality of your explanations. Before you counter with the inevitable "Who created God" argument I'll oblige with an answer..... God did as he exists beyond our human perceptions of reality. If he was subject to the limitations in human reasoning he wouldn't be God. So try as you might to answer the question and be thorough. For example, don't just say the Big Bang. Explain how the matter formed out of nothing before the explosion. I look forward to the ridiculous explanations that make a mockery of this web site's name. William of Occam was correct.... the simplest explanation for creation is God.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Don't accuse me of looking


Don't accuse me of looking up info that I studied for 2yrs. In fact the textbook definition of natural selection ya gave makes me wonder what your defending your argument with. Ya really think I don't know how natural selection works. Silly man.  Any way, the whole point here is that i'm suggesting (hypothesizing) that natural selection leads to variation and nothing more. Lets use the blue-green algae for my argument. Its been around for 1.5 BILLION yrs. This is long enough for an organism to witness environmental change of varying extremes many many times. If environmental circumstances lead to evolution than why does this particular organism seem to be immune from environmental change leading to evolution. It display some variation but nothing more despite the vast array of climates natural history says it must have endured. Are we to presume this organism was perfect in its makeup and immune to evolutionary theory. In such a case ya should adopt it as your god as it defies your precious theory. Also, when ya work on science or history online sources ain't to be trusted unless ya have a membership to a scholarly site filled with journals and the like. So if ya knew this ya would have stumbled on the fact that genetics do not prove New World monkeys are from Africa. We don't have the DNA from 35 mya. The conclusion is deduced from shared physical traits present in the fossils such as dental formulas, bone structure, amount of digits, etc. Have faith in the island or mangrove sailing theory if ya want. Maybe thats how your new algae god travels. ( Don't mean to offend with these quirks but as you can see they do illustrate a point, agreed?) 

Look at you throwing insults, if you studied it, then you know that if environmental pressures that require it to adapt, however it is entirely possible that it doesn't need to change because it's make up is still well suited to survive as is in it's environment. Silly man learn what you are talking about, it may have varied, however did it require it to adapt to those changes, apparently not because it still around as is, and as such it is well suited for it's environment even after all this time. Again environmental pressures be it, change in the actual environment it lives it, its food source or other factors that require it to change if it is no longer suited for it's survival or it will die off.

Next the monkeys, yes there is genetic information from the old world monkeys http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/10/1620 oh look at that you studied it so well in the last 2 years. Yes you are right about the membership to those, however if the see the link well yeah I will take their word on it and take the fact that they know what they are talking about. Not exactly faith like you have in god since they studies can be tested and proven wrong, however since they haven't yet, well I will take it that it's sound.

So far no you haven't illustrated your point at all, except to show your an ass, so yeah who cares, in the end YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE FOR GOD. Not one bit of evidence have you shown that god exists. So far, I have given more evidence that evolution is true, than you have that god exists.

 


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 hey canuckles nice link.

 hey canuckles nice link. read it again. the study uses genetics to trace a pattern and hypothesize with statistics. Absent still is the the DNA from 35 mya  NEW WORLD monkeys. Its using DNA from younger Old World monkeys to to make an argument. It proves nothing. Notice the amount of times "estimate" is used in less than a paragraph. Its an attempt to add teeth to the island hopping mangrove sailor theory. Some credible scientists will accept the data others will contest. Its called peer review. The winner of the debate will determine if its worth putting in a textbook or not. Studies like these come and go all the time. Only rarely do they prove particularly fruitful. For now it can be your own personal bible that follows the prophets (platyrrhines) of your algae God. Seriously man think before you post. I may be able to access that whole article in one of my accounts and give it to ya if ya want.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 On a further note

 On a further note latincanuckles, look at those arguments in that article and keep in mind the notion of disproof. Right now the study is trying to disprove other possibilities about the origins of New World monkeys. He doesn't bash the proponents against his idea he goes out an tries to prove them wrong. Here is the contention with all the atheistic and religious. The only way any side will win is by disproof. Right now it ain't gonna happen either way. If only we (myself included) could follow the example of such professionalism the animosity would, I dare say, evolve into respect. So with this in mind let me ask you a question. I am confused about your explanation for the algae. Why don't the climate and geological changes that occur all over the earth over the course of 1.5 billion years effect the algae if natural selection is driven by adaptation to environmental change? I'll hypothesize that it disproves evolution by natural selection and supports (but not prove) evidence for creation. I look forward to your contesting hypothesis that shows how it supports evolution. We can both use what evidence is available (earth changes over 1.5 billion yrs, the algae, comparative studies of similar instances) and argue seriously without empty rhetoric. If ya wanna debate the monkey thing I can attempt to get a hold of that article and we can use it to support our own hypothesis' as well as contest their merit. Keep in mind no one really wins. That's not up to us. Much more qualified people would have to collectively weigh the significance of our findings. This is how science works.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 To all who have contested

 To all who have contested my arguments. I made a mistake coming in here and trying to use religion to combat the opinions of most in here. I should have stuck with what I know most about. Everyone is well versed in matters of faith in deities but it seems the faith espoused in evolutionary theory or crackpot history professed by many is vehemently denied. I challenge you all to combat my evidence that I feel disproves evolution. I'll take on historical interpretations used by many to support their various claims about history as well (Ecclesiastical, figures, culture, or any other aspect of history abused here to support the atheist faith, my specialty is Euro history starting with the Crusades up till the Reformation) I can back my arguments up with sound evidence that I feel can refute your conclusions. Feel free to respond in a similar manner. 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Well since we won't have the

Well since we won't have the genetics have 35 MYA however the hypothesis is if the monkeys diverged 35 MYA there would be similar dna or genetic sequences that proves that divergence just like we know humans diverged from a common ancestor of the apes because of the genetic information, seriously do you not get this at all? Do you not understand how the arrive to that conclusion?

You are arguing that accepting the facts of science is the same as having faith in god, yet there are 2 major differences one has evidence to back up it's claim, the other, has no evidence to back up its claim, it requires nothing but faith...which so far you haven't shown any evidence that god exists, so I must assume that you simply have faith in god with no evidence to back up your claim.

As for the cyanophycea,  if (and I am using a HUGE if at this point) it proves creation it still says nothing about god nor does it specifically mean it has to be your god, as well all the evidence regarding evolution has to be proven wrong, including genetic, fossil etc, etc, etc. Yet it doesn't cyanphycea evolved to the red algae as well. However from here (http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/20/3/148.pdf) sorry I don't have any time to find other books on the blue-green algae as my friend who is a marine biologist (and actually is studying current algae effects in fresh water areas) is sleeping at this hour, but if I can get some more info I will post it. It seems that modern day blue green algae has evolved since it's 2.3 to 3 billion year stay on this planet, this can be found on page 14. So yeah it may have been on this planet however it to has evolved to adapt to changes.

However my original statement still stands, a species needs to mutate or evolve if it is no longer suited for it's environment, the cyanophycea is good at surviving at extreme temperatures and environmental changes. That doesn't mean that if the temperature changes that it HAS to evolve, it means that if it is no longer well suited to survive it must either adapt or die off, if it can remain the same without the need to evolve per se the it will. However you still have to discredit the mounds and mounds of evidence for evolution. Then prove that the only other alternative is god, and then even harder, its the god that you believe exists. So far you haven't come close to doing that really.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: To all who

scuppers wrote:

 To all who have contested my arguments. I made a mistake coming in here and trying to use religion to combat the opinions of most in here. I should have stuck with what I know most about. Everyone is well versed in matters of faith in deities but it seems the faith espoused in evolutionary theory or crackpot history professed by many is vehemently denied. I challenge you all to combat my evidence that I feel disproves evolution. I'll take on historical interpretations used by many to support their various claims about history as well (Ecclesiastical, figures, culture, or any other aspect of history abused here to support the atheist faith, my specialty is Euro history starting with the Crusades up till the Reformation) I can back my arguments up with sound evidence that I feel can refute your conclusions. Feel free to respond in a similar manner. 

 

Scuppers, I am interested in your response to the points I brought up.  For your information, 'atheist faith' is an oxymoron.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
  Scuppers, I am

 

 

Scuppers, I am interested in your response to the points I brought up.  For your information, 'atheist faith' is an oxymoron.

 

Its not an oxymoron. Let me illustrate. The historical Jesus can be are example. The lack of sources from the period of his ministry and death, estimated by supreme historians to be anywhere between 7 months to 3 yrs, is touted as evidence that he didn't exist by some here (i don't know your belief about the man but this is just an example). They make arguments based on this to refute his existence quite ferociously. Upon peer review this fails to convince the academic world of these claims as a whole so the standard conclusion that he existed and is supported by Roman and Jewish accounts 20-30yrs after his death in addition to Paul's letters and the Gospels. I'll  leave the religious notions out of this but you still have to have faith in one of the conclusions that say he exists or not. No one is gonna prove he existed with 100% certainty so all have to make a choice of faith when interpreting the evidence to accept his existence or not. I have faith that he did in fact live, some have faith that he didn't. In this case the accepted norm is with my opinion but in the evolution debate I espouse the taboo belief. So to wrap it up, in any instances of science or history that can't be observed with our own eyes due to gaps in time a faith in the pieces of evidence as it fits anyone's particular theory/belief/hypothesis is required. Whatever you believe about Jesus is a leap of faith you make according to the evidence. Sometimes your choice is supported by the majority (Jesus' was alive, evolution is true) or sometimes you buck the trend (Jesus never lived, evolution is not true). This is faith in its most basic tenets. Everyone expresses notion of faith its just that some don't recognize it.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:6. Man's

scuppers wrote:
6. Man's single phyletic line. No one knows why only a single phyletic line out of more than a billion led to man. This requires such an extreme of special conditions that all evolutionary biologists are perplexed. (ID *gasp*)

Uhm... no evolutionary biologist of whom I'm aware is perplexed, any more than they are perplexed by the single phyletic line of the duck-billed platypus, or the blue whale, or any other phyletic line. The fact that humans evolved is no more stupendous than the fact that wolves evolved. This statement betrays your grave misunderstanding of evolution via natural selection.

Or, as Douglas Adams once said, our wonder at being the form we are is about the same as a mud-puddle being amazed at how perfectly it fits a hole in the ground.

 

I also take exception to your misuse of Occam. The actual rule is, Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. What you have done is multiplied entities infinitely, by introducing an infinite god.

Finally, your satisfaction with an answer has no bearing on the reality of that answer. You feel god must exist as you are certain something cannot come from nothing. You therefore create an instance of special pleading by claiming that god didn't come from nothing, but from god. This is an infinitely powerful answer, as "god did it" is universally applicable. It is also universally wrong; however, please don't let that interfere with your satisfaction with the answer.

Never mind that there are actual hypotheses about the origin of our universe. The problem isn't that we have no idea; the problem is that we have too many alternatives, and lack the ability to distinguish the incorrect ones from the possibly-correct ones. Much is riding on the nature of quantum mechanics, another area in which we are ignorant. Do you have a god-based hypothesis on the nature of quantum mechanics, or do you accept ignorance when it comes to the fundamental fabric of reality?

It seems your dislike of ignorance could be quite troublesome. After all, there are many important questions to which you have no answer. Does your insistence on knowledge require an answer to each of these unknowns? Even if the answer is wrong?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Well since

latincanuck wrote:

Well since we won't have the genetics have 35 MYA however the hypothesis is if the monkeys diverged 35 MYA there would be similar dna or genetic sequences that proves that divergence just like we know humans diverged from a common ancestor of the apes because of the genetic information, seriously do you not get this at all? Do you not understand how the arrive to that conclusion?

You are arguing that accepting the facts of science is the same as having faith in god, yet there are 2 major differences one has evidence to back up it's claim, the other, has no evidence to back up its claim, it requires nothing but faith...which so far you haven't shown any evidence that god exists, so I must assume that you simply have faith in god with no evidence to back up your claim.

As for the cyanophycea,  if (and I am using a HUGE if at this point) it proves creation it still says nothing about god nor does it specifically mean it has to be your god, as well all the evidence regarding evolution has to be proven wrong, including genetic, fossil etc, etc, etc. Yet it doesn't cyanphycea evolved to the red algae as well. However from here (http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/20/3/148.pdf) sorry I don't have any time to find other books on the blue-green algae as my friend who is a marine biologist (and actually is studying current algae effects in fresh water areas) is sleeping at this hour, but if I can get some more info I will post it. It seems that modern day blue green algae has evolved since it's 2.3 to 3 billion year stay on this planet, this can be found on page 14. So yeah it may have been on this planet however it to has evolved to adapt to changes.

However my original statement still stands, a species needs to mutate or evolve if it is no longer suited for it's environment, the cyanophycea is good at surviving at extreme temperatures and environmental changes. That doesn't mean that if the temperature changes that it HAS to evolve, it means that if it is no longer well suited to survive it must either adapt or die off, if it can remain the same without the need to evolve per se the it will. However you still have to discredit the mounds and mounds of evidence for evolution. Then prove that the only other alternative is god, and then even harder, its the god that you believe exists. So far you haven't come close to doing that really.

I understand how the conclusion is derived I just disagree. Other very qualified individuals will disagree with that  conclusion as well and the scientific community will slowly march toward a consensus. This is one step forward or back depending on the results. Why do ya think its poses such a problem? They can't sufficiently account for all aspects of the fossil record for NWMs. As for disproving evolution I used many examples outside the monkeys and algae to make a case. Ya don't have to accept them. If ya want explanation on the 4 points you bypassed I'll oblige (look at the response in the other post). But at least I'm making an attempt to disprove the theory. I feel if evolution can be challenged then evidence will point to creation but it will never prove that God exists. Your goal should proceed as modern disputes in science. The disproof of God should be your perogative. In the absence of disproof all you have is faith in notions of no God.  BTW, I'm glad you considered my point with the notion of "if." Thats all I'm trying to do. I don't wanna eliminate your worldview. I just want you to think about all the evidence not just the stuff you agree with.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Uhm... no evolutionary

 

Uhm... no evolutionary biologist of whom I'm aware is perplexed, any more than they are perplexed by the single phyletic line of the duck-billed platypus, or the blue whale, or any other phyletic line. The fact that humans evolved is no more stupendous than the fact that wolves evolved. This statement betrays your grave misunderstanding of evolution via natural selection.

Or, as Douglas Adams once said, our wonder at being the form we are is about the same as a mud-puddle being amazed at how perfectly it fits a hole in the ground.

 

I also take exception to your misuse of Occam. The actual rule is, Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. What you have done is multiplied entities infinitely, by introducing an infinite god.

Finally, your satisfaction with an answer has no bearing on the reality of that answer. You feel god must exist as you are certain something cannot come from nothing. You therefore create an instance of special pleading by claiming that god didn't come from nothing, but from god. This is an infinitely powerful answer, as "god did it" is universally applicable. It is also universally wrong; however, please don't let that interfere with your satisfaction with the answer.

Never mind that there are actual hypotheses about the origin of our universe. The problem isn't that we have no idea; the problem is that we have too many alternatives, and lack the ability to distinguish the incorrect ones from the possibly-correct ones. Much is riding on the nature of quantum mechanics, another area in which we are ignorant. Do you have a god-based hypothesis on the nature of quantum mechanics, or do you accept ignorance when it comes to the fundamental fabric of reality?

It seems your dislike of ignorance could be quite troublesome. After all, there are many important questions to which you have no answer. Does your insistence on knowledge require an answer to each of these unknowns? Even if the answer is wrong?

My response:

I've realized I can't use religious belief here as most are prepared to refute what they have heard hundreds of time. I already explained this in another post but I'll repeat in more detail. For the human line is was accepted for a while that the Candelabra Theory of modern human evolution was producing multiple lines. Once the Out of Africa hypothesis refuted this (good thing because the racist Social Darwinists were ready to pounce) man was on a single line again as the origin was cemented to one place. A Candelabra theory is accepted for, say, the various forms of crocidiles and alligators spread all over the globe. They originated from different lines after breaking with their LCA. For humans it was once thought the Chines, Africans, Europeans, etc. originated on different lines. Genetics DISPROVED this and suggests the evolutionary history of modern humans is indeed special. The most accepted hypothesis of how this happened is the bottleneck theory. They say at around 70,000 yrs ago the human pops. on earth were decimated and only a handful of especially smart humans in Africa lived through whatever happened. They estimate that only dozens to hundreds of humans were alive at this time and that their superior ability to adapt to the catastrophe led to us being as smart as we are. They point to advancing stone tool technology and cave paintings to support their argument. I disagree and would say modern humans are indeed biologically special and the line does not suggest a bottleneck in the population. In fact, I'll hypothesize (not prove) that this is evidence for Adam being our LCA. Ya don't have to accept it but can you disprove it?


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:The disproof

scuppers wrote:
The disproof of God should be your perogative. In the absence of disproof all you have is faith in notions of no God.  

What does that mean? Are you saying that because we're atheists it's our exclusive privilege to disprove that gods exist? Why don't people who believe in gods have the right to disprove that they exist?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:scuppers

Gauche wrote:

scuppers wrote:
The disproof of God should be your perogative. In the absence of disproof all you have is faith in notions of no God.  

What does that mean? Are you saying that because we're atheists it's our exclusive privilege to disprove that gods exist? Why don't people who believe in gods have the right to disprove that they exist?

No thats not what I'm saying. I'm just asking for evidence that supports your belief. I will respect your opinion but rest assured I will counter with evidence I feel supports mine (see my evidence against evolution). I want to know what causes you guys to deduce your conclusion and to share my deductions. I can't speak for the religious who just believe. I can show you the scientific and historical evidence that led me to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I don't want to kill your belief I just want to debate intellectually and make a case. You don't have to accept it. And I won't set out to disprove God because my hypothesis on creation, i feel, supports the notion of a creator. Its for those who disagree to prove me wrong or at least make a better case.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Gauche

scuppers wrote:

Gauche wrote:

scuppers wrote:
The disproof of God should be your perogative. In the absence of disproof all you have is faith in notions of no God.  

What does that mean? Are you saying that because we're atheists it's our exclusive privilege to disprove that gods exist? Why don't people who believe in gods have the right to disprove that they exist?

No thats not what I'm saying. I'm just asking for evidence that supports your belief. I will respect your opinion but rest assured I will counter with evidence I feel supports mine (see my evidence against evolution). I want to know what causes you guys to deduce your conclusion and to share my deductions. I can't speak for the religious who just believe. I can show you the scientific and historical evidence that led me to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I don't want to kill your belief I just want to debate intellectually and make a case. You don't have to accept it. And I won't set out to disprove God because my hypothesis on creation, i feel, supports the notion of a creator. Its for those who disagree to prove me wrong or at least make a better case.

Okay, that makes it a little more clear. So you disavow the first statement. It's not our prerogative to disprove gods.

What about the second statement? Is it that you believe the standard of disbelief should be disproof?

So if something hasn't been disproved or can't be then you believe it automatically?

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Okay, that makes it a

 

Okay, that makes it a little more clear. So you disavow the first statement. It's not our prerogative to disprove gods.

What about the second statement? Is it that you believe the standard of disbelief should be disproof?

So if something hasn't been disproved or can't be then you believe it automatically?

 

 

No disproof doesn't have to mandate disbelief. You are free to come up with your own conclusions. I just want to show that in the absence of disproof all possibilities should not just be thrown out the door in favor of another. An opinion held by the majority doesn't neccessarily refute the opinion of the minority. Human history if full of instances where the majority opinion led to shameful actions. (slavery is one example) If I can somehow foster a little more respect between the two camps of opinion I feel that atheists and the religious can move from combative to constructive. Like this conversation. I must leave this for now but will respond later tonight to anything you post 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:I just want

scuppers wrote:
I just want to show that in the absence of disproof all possibilities should not just be thrown out the door in favor of another.

But you admit that you do throw out possibilities in the absence of disproof because you don't automatically believe everything that can't be disproved. So, sometimes you should throw out possibilities in the absence of disproof right?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 But you admit that you do

 

But you admit that you do throw out possibilities in the absence of disproof because you don't automatically believe everything that can't be disproved. So, sometimes you should throw out possibilities in the absence of disproof right?

Your reading to much into my explanation. My belief was fostered on evidence I feel supports it. I'm sure thats how all your opinions form as well. Its our free will that leads us down whatever path we chose. Mine led me reject evolution and accept creation on the evidence. Yours did the opposite. What could or should be thrown out is up to the individual.   The notion of disproof is just a tool we both can use to justify our personal beliefs. When two opinions clash disproof is the only tool at our disposal to argue with. We will make our conclusion and truly believe in its merit. I will accept or throw out what I choose and you will do the same. Its free will supported by evidence I suppose. So what "should" be rejected is entirely up to the individual. Sometimes a lot of individuals agree collectively  on what to reject but those who disagree "should" still have a voice. (just wanted to add before I leave)


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:I understand

scuppers wrote:

I understand how the conclusion is derived I just disagree. Other very qualified individuals will disagree with that  conclusion as well and the scientific community will slowly march toward a consensus. This is one step forward or back depending on the results. Why do ya think its poses such a problem? They can't sufficiently account for all aspects of the fossil record for NWMs. As for disproving evolution I used many examples outside the monkeys and algae to make a case. Ya don't have to accept them. If ya want explanation on the 4 points you bypassed I'll oblige (look at the response in the other post). But at least I'm making an attempt to disprove the theory. I feel if evolution can be challenged then evidence will point to creation but it will never prove that God exists. Your goal should proceed as modern disputes in science. The disproof of God should be your perogative. In the absence of disproof all you have is faith in notions of no God.  BTW, I'm glad you considered my point with the notion of "if." Thats all I'm trying to do. I don't wanna eliminate your worldview. I just want you to think about all the evidence not just the stuff you agree with.

Yet you haven't disproven any of it really, yes we cannot have every single fossil of every single monkey that has every existed, that's just not going to happen, however we have to look at what is found, including the fossils we do have, the genetic information and make a proper conclusion with what we do have, if the results match with the hypothesis then we move on towards accepting that the new world monkeys came from old world monkeys, and of we have to take in account the most plausible possibility, which so far they have, yes they will never have 100 percent certainty, however what we have is far more plausible than a creator option.

The issue I take with the whole god thing is that there is no evidence that such a being exists, more specifically the judeo-christian god, as it's main attributes depending on the believer contradict each other are implausible or impossible to have. But the main part of course is no evidence to back up such a belief. If evolution is challenged the default option isn't creation, we have to look back at it all and determine a new explanation (or theory if you like) but to date that has not occurred and evolution has a very strong backing of evidence and facts. Where the notion of god has no evidence and is purely on faith, science does back up the evidence, it even stood up in court, I do not believe in faith that there is no god, I am at the default position, I see no evidence that god exists, therefore I have no reason to believe such a being exists.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Your

scuppers wrote:

 Your reading to much into my explanation. My belief was fostered on evidence I feel supports it. I'm sure thats how all your opinions form as well. Its our free will that leads us down whatever path we chose. Mine led me reject evolution and accept creation on the evidence. Yours did the opposite. What could or should be thrown out is up to the individual.   The notion of disproof is just a tool we both can use to justify our personal beliefs. When two opinions clash disproof is the only tool at our disposal to argue with. We will make our conclusion and truly believe in its merit. I will accept or throw out what I choose and you will do the same. Its free will supported by evidence I suppose. So what "should" be rejected is entirely up to the individual. Sometimes a lot of individuals agree collectively  on what to reject but those who disagree "should" still have a voice. (just wanted to add before I leave)

Well, you were presented with a claim and evidence that you found compelling and you believed the claim. This is what I'm gathering from your statements. I assume that other times you were presented with claims and evidence that you did not find at all compelling and you rejected those claims as arbitrary or even false. What I'm trying to get at is what you think I've done that is so objectionable and different from what you've done.  

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Well, you were presented

Well, you were presented with a claim and evidence that you found compelling and you believed the claim. This is what I'm gathering from your statements. I assume that other times you were presented with claims and evidence that you did not find at all compelling and you rejected those claims as arbitrary or even false. What I'm trying to get at is what you think I've done that is so objectionable and different from what you've done.  

 

Let me provide an example as examples can provide a clear path to understanding. I will use something I don't believe to help illustrate. When I was learning about the fossil evidence of Gigantopithecus an interesting discussion took place in the classroom. Because a jaw bone from this ape that dates to about 25,000 yrs ago was found in Asia another student asked the professor if this could account for the legends of Bigfoot in the Pacific Northwest.  The professor laughed and said it was ridiculous because that would mean it would have made an intercontinental journey. Another student chimed in with the New World monkey theory that is accepted and asked why Giganto couldn't have floated on a breakaway piece of land or crossed the Bering land bridge.. The professor's exact words were "you just had to bring that up." From here the classroom discussion took a break from the usual talk of teeth, jaws, sagital crests, etc. and a fun and lighthearted conversation emerged on Yeti and Bigfoot legends and how they seem to follow a path that originates in Asia and ends up in the Pacific Northwest. The professor's conclusion was that although a small possibility exists that Giganto can explain those legends, in the absence of disproof for what is accepted, such as a living one or fossils found in N. America that post-date 25,000 yrs ago, we must concede to the majority view. This of course doesn't stop some people from believing in Bigfoot and the evidence mentioned is why they continue to insist on their hypothesis. Now me and the professor both agreed that Giganto is not running around in N. America but we both also recognized their is a slim possibility. Lets relate this to my disbelief of evolution. I'll never reject what I see as the very slim possibility of it being valid but the problems of the theory at the highest levels of evolutionary theory convince me its not true. Thats why I use the evidence I do. If you can convincingly disprove my argument with this evidence or other examples by all means I'd love to hear it. I don't think anything you would provide that explains your belief is objectionable entirely. Only that I believe my evidence is superior. You will believe yours is superior. Until God makes his presence known or one animal is observed changing into another all we have is incomplete evidence. We can debate the conclusions we came to from this evidence but in the absence of disproof we have to consider the possibility, no matter how slim we feel it to be, that we might be wrong. I believe 99.99999999999% in my opinion but I have to keep the door minimally cracked open to other possibilities, even ones I reject.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: Yet you

latincanuck wrote:

 

Yet you haven't disproven any of it really, yes we cannot have every single fossil of every single monkey that has every existed, that's just not going to happen, however we have to look at what is found, including the fossils we do have, the genetic information and make a proper conclusion with what we do have, if the results match with the hypothesis then we move on towards accepting that the new world monkeys came from old world monkeys, and of we have to take in account the most plausible possibility, which so far they have, yes they will never have 100 percent certainty, however what we have is far more plausible than a creator option.

The issue I take with the whole god thing is that there is no evidence that such a being exists, more specifically the judeo-christian god, as it's main attributes depending on the believer contradict each other are implausible or impossible to have. But the main part of course is no evidence to back up such a belief. If evolution is challenged the default option isn't creation, we have to look back at it all and determine a new explanation (or theory if you like) but to date that has not occurred and evolution has a very strong backing of evidence and facts. Where the notion of god has no evidence and is purely on faith, science does back up the evidence, it even stood up in court, I do not believe in faith that there is no god, I am at the default position, I see no evidence that god exists, therefore I have no reason to believe such a being exists.

I'm limiting my evidence here to evolution. I feel that with the evidence I used I can make a hypothesis that evolution is unlikely and in effect creation gains more credibility. You hypothesis is evolution is true therefore making a creator unlikely. I' ve provided my evidence and your argument against it is not convincing to me. Feel free to provide your own evidence and I will argue against it. We don't have to agree but a constructive debate can only help us to understand where we are coming from. My faith is shaped by my studies. I wasn't raised religious. I deduced my belief from evidence. What is the evidence for your faith/belief in evolution?


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
This isn't germane to the

This isn't germane to the converstation, but can you please use line breaks?  Trying to read your posts is giving me eye-strain.  Thanks!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I get it scuppers

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

scuppers wrote:

Religion is restrictive. It tells you are nothing compared God so you better limit your natural tendencies to kill, steal, or any other evil inclinations. Without God (which most all are by now) those limitations are lifted. Your only concern is material gain that makes your life easier. The evidence is all around us.

 

You can tell me I am a murderer and a thief, a person with no concern but material gain that makes my life easier and for making this insult I'm not allowed to tell you to fuck off without you seizing the moral high ground. You claim to be simply presenting a different opinion. 

Telling some one to get stuffed and telling some one they have an inherent desire to steal and kill are insults at entirely different levels whether your mind is subtle enough to comprehend the difference or no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:  Its not

scuppers wrote:

 

 

Its not an oxymoron. Let me illustrate. The historical Jesus can be are example. The lack of sources from the period of his ministry and death, estimated by supreme historians to be anywhere between 7 months to 3 yrs, is touted as evidence that he didn't exist by some here (i don't know your belief about the man but this is just an example). They make arguments based on this to refute his existence quite ferociously. Upon peer review this fails to convince the academic world of these claims as a whole so the standard conclusion that he existed and is supported by Roman and Jewish accounts 20-30yrs after his death in addition to Paul's letters and the Gospels. I'll  leave the religious notions out of this but you still have to have faith in one of the conclusions that say he exists or not. No one is gonna prove he existed with 100% certainty so all have to make a choice of faith when interpreting the evidence to accept his existence or not. I have faith that he did in fact live, some have faith that he didn't. In this case the accepted norm is with my opinion but in the evolution debate I espouse the taboo belief. So to wrap it up, in any instances of science or history that can't be observed with our own eyes due to gaps in time a faith in the pieces of evidence as it fits anyone's particular theory/belief/hypothesis is required. Whatever you believe about Jesus is a leap of faith you make according to the evidence. Sometimes your choice is supported by the majority (Jesus' was alive, evolution is true) or sometimes you buck the trend (Jesus never lived, evolution is not true). This is faith in its most basic tenets. Everyone expresses notion of faith its just that some don't recognize it.

 

Except that, by definition, faith ONLY applies to belief, not a lack of belief.

 

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing  - Wiki

 

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

 

Therefore, by definition, 'atheist faith' is an oxymoron, because you can't have belief in disbelief.  Atheists may have faith regarding certain ideas, but not atheism itself.  Any way this is irrelevant.

 

Please respond to my arguments against your eight points regarding evolution.  You have failed to even acknowledge that I posted them.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:I'm limiting

scuppers wrote:

I'm limiting my evidence here to evolution. I feel that with the evidence I used I can make a hypothesis that evolution is unlikely and in effect creation gains more credibility. You hypothesis is evolution is true therefore making a creator unlikely. I' ve provided my evidence and your argument against it is not convincing to me. Feel free to provide your own evidence and I will argue against it. We don't have to agree but a constructive debate can only help us to understand where we are coming from. My faith is shaped by my studies. I wasn't raised religious. I deduced my belief from evidence. What is the evidence for your faith/belief in evolution?

It isn't a hypothesis, I accept the facts that evolution has been proven, your argument and so called evidence hasn't convinced me at all that evolution isn't true. I have no faith in evolution I accept the facts, there is no faith required for it. As for the reason I accept it is because it is very well backed by the evidence. Not just in genetics, but fossil and observed facts, even if they are manipulated by humans in the case of dogs, it proves evolution, it does not disprove it by any means.

Evolution, does not rely upon any entities or concepts which do not otherwise exist in any scientific model. It does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual in the universe. This means the theory of evolution is the simplest and most reliable explanation of the diversity of life on our planet. Everything offered as alternatives requires us to imagine new entities not used or needed in any other scientific model, like gods

Unlike the god hypothesis (this is all it is and barely one at that) the theory of evolution can be tested as well as falsified, as well evolution rests upon a general and widespread pattern of evidence from many different fields, so a similar pattern of contradictory evidence is needed to falsify it, so far you haven't done that at all. Isolated anomalies might force modifications, but no more (which is what you have offered so far).

We can see the scientific method at work at every stage of the study of evolution and the biological sciences; in contrast, we find not the scientific method but theology and religious orthodoxy behind evolution’s creationist competitors.

That is my reasoning for accepting the facts of evolution, not belief, not hypothesis, but accepting the facts. There is no belief in evolution, either you accept it or you don't but if you don't, you have to provide far better evidence in many more fields that what you have posted so far.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is fascinating.

scuppers wrote:

Anyway, I cannot accept the logic of "I don't know" nor should you. If that was the final conclusion for all problems that are not understood humanity would never advance in science, art, culture, or anything else in the world.

 

"The logic of I don't know..."

Are you suggesting you refuse to accept that in our efforts to comprehend our place in the universe it's 'logically' possible for us to drill back to some mysterious absolute moment of ignition existing outside the universe and driven by we know not what? And this when we can't even comprehend the nature of the universe we live in? What you are suggesting is not logical, it's impossible.

 

 


 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

scuppers wrote:

Anyway, I cannot accept the logic of "I don't know" nor should you. If that was the final conclusion for all problems that are not understood humanity would never advance in science, art, culture, or anything else in the world.

 

"The logic of I don't know..."

Are you suggesting you refuse to accept that in our efforts to comprehend our place in the universe it's 'logically' possible for us to drill back to some mysterious absolute moment of ignition existing outside the universe and driven by we know not what? And this when we can't even comprehend the nature of the universe we live in? What you are suggesting is not logical, it's impossible.

 

I always thought saying I don't know was being truthful, because we can't know everything, and we start the journey of knowledge and understanding by stating the obvious, I don't know. To me saying god did it, is irrational and illogical, it doesn't answer anything. I don't know is logical and truthful...that is until you know.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 v4aulting, I answered your

 v4aulting, I answered your responses. Look in the post directly under you post contesting my evidence. My apologies for not making it clearly visible but I'm not used to writing in, or quoting, on any kind of message board. Those responses are what got gauche interested. I look forward to you next response.

As for you latincanuckles, post some evidence point by point and we can debate the merit of such examples. I am familiar with evolutionary theory to an extent that goes way beyond standard textbook stuff (particularly human and primate evolution).  So unless ya got something new to add to the table just stop posting the same old rehashed stuff. I already know you believe what your told is true.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Unrepentant_Elitist

Unrepentant_Elitist wrote:

Yes, you have an answer.

The validity thereof is suspect and improbable which leaves you with...nothing.

Allow me to demonstrate.

"Do you think Brad and Angelina will work it out after all?"

"Three pounds flax."

Yes, it is an answer, but unintelligible to those of us not steeped in the xtian mysteries. As to your elliptical argument as to the existence of god validated by the...existence of god, this type of argument is beneath contempt. I am a bit surprised that so many people have chosen to respond to you; this type of solipsism is anathema to a thinking individual. Please peddle your ignorant ravings elsewhere; few people have either the time or the inclination to engage such misconstructions.  

God damn are you elegant in your writing. I'm trying to stop writing run on sentences on the internet and you are kicking out posts like this all the time. We need to bring classy writing back.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 v4aulting, it seems you

 v4aulting, it seems you were the one who was interested in my responses to your arguments. I'm confused. Why did ya post you were interested yesterday and say I didn't respond today? Anyway, just look closely and read fully the post under yours on the 2nd page and respond. 


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
[ "The logic of I don't

[

 

"The logic of I don't know..."

Are you suggesting you refuse to accept that in our efforts to comprehend our place in the universe it's 'logically' possible for us to drill back to some mysterious absolute moment of ignition existing outside the universe and driven by we know not what? And this when we can't even comprehend the nature of the universe we live in? What you are suggesting is not logical, it's impossible.

 

 

 

 

I'm shifting my strategy here (see 3rd post on this pg). I myself will admit i'm novice in esoteric explanation and made a mistake trying to combat you guys with stuff in my rookie year of religion. Everyone's well prepared. I do know evolutionary science and history, however, so I implore you to challenge my evidence against evolution. If ya have any historical misconceptions i'll clear them up too but it seems the evolution thing strikes more nerves. So, whatcha got?


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

scuppers wrote:

Anyway, I cannot accept the logic of "I don't know" nor should you. If that was the final conclusion for all problems that are not understood humanity would never advance in science, art, culture, or anything else in the world.

 

"The logic of I don't know..."

Are you suggesting you refuse to accept that in our efforts to comprehend our place in the universe it's 'logically' possible for us to drill back to some mysterious absolute moment of ignition existing outside the universe and driven by we know not what? And this when we can't even comprehend the nature of the universe we live in? What you are suggesting is not logical, it's impossible.

 

I always thought saying I don't know was being truthful, because we can't know everything, and we start the journey of knowledge and understanding by stating the obvious, I don't know. To me saying god did it, is irrational and illogical, it doesn't answer anything. I don't know is logical and truthful...that is until you know.

Let me verse you on what you don't know about evolution some more.  I'll point you in the right direction if ya wanna contest my views on human evolution: chimpanzees, fire and how it relates to gut and brain size, long arms/short legs, browridges, Gracile and Robust australopiths, Homo habilus, noze size and breathing and how it relates to body temp, Neanderthal DNA discovery, Archaic homo, the problem presented by the missing link (this favors your view), and many many more. Info form these should be easily attainable. Happy research Smiling


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'm not either. Just a

Quote:

I'm not either. Just a historian who dabbled in anthropology for awhile.

 

This is all I found regarding my original eight point post.  Everything else was commentary on others' posts.  If you could find it, I'd be much obliged, but I can only conclude that it isn't there (given that I can't find it).  I would politely ask you to re-post your responses if, for whatever reason, it didn't post when you thought it did.  Thanks.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Quote:

I'm not either. Just a historian who dabbled in anthropology for awhile.

 

This is all I found regarding my original eight point post.  Everything else was commentary on others' posts.  If you could find it, I'd be much obliged, but I can only conclude that it isn't there (given that I can't find it).  I would politely ask you to re-post your responses if, for whatever reason, it didn't post when you thought it did.  Thanks.

I said read the ENTIRE post carefully not just the bottom. Its contained within the quote (pg. 2 on this topic). Again I apologize for not making it clear as this posting stuff is new to me.  And why did ya say you were interested in those replies yesterday?


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Oh shit, my bad. It'll have

Oh shit, my bad.

 

It'll have to wait until tomorrow night, I gotta get some sleep.  Sorry about the confusion.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Let me verse

scuppers wrote:

Let me verse you on what you don't know about evolution some more.  I'll point you in the right direction if ya wanna contest my views on human evolution: chimpanzees, fire and how it relates to gut and brain size, long arms/short legs, browridges, Gracile and Robust australopiths, Homo habilus, noze size and breathing and how it relates to body temp, Neanderthal DNA discovery, Archaic homo, the problem presented by the missing link (this favors your view), and many many more. Info form these should be easily attainable. Happy research Smiling

Again, I can admit what I don't know, however you have still not provided the evidence necessary to discredit evolution as a valid scientific theory, just because I am not well versed in every aspect of evolution doesn't mean I take it on faith, just like I highly doubt you are well versed in all the fields of evolution, from medicine, biology, molecular biology, genetics, paleontology developmental biology, geology, physiology and anatomy. In the end there are things we won't know as individuals, however as a species as a whole we do, and even though you don't accept it, that's fine, but you haven't disproved evolution by any stretch of the imagination.

You asked why I accepted evolution and I answered. Your answer that god did it, doesn't really answer anything in the end, and you now have to prove god exists. To which you haven't done at all. If you don't like an honest answer of I don't know, I can't go beyond this part of the conversation, saying god did it, is the most dishonest answer someone can give. I may not know how the universe started, i may not know everything there is about evolution, I may not know everything about astronomy or geology, however what I do know, is that the possibility of the christian god existing is next to nil, as no evidence has ever shown that it exists. However the evidence that evolution is a fact is far far outweighs your god hypothesis so far.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:scuppers

latincanuck wrote:

scuppers wrote:

Let me verse you on what you don't know about evolution some more.  I'll point you in the right direction if ya wanna contest my views on human evolution: chimpanzees, fire and how it relates to gut and brain size, long arms/short legs, browridges, Gracile and Robust australopiths, Homo habilus, noze size and breathing and how it relates to body temp, Neanderthal DNA discovery, Archaic homo, the problem presented by the missing link (this favors your view), and many many more. Info form these should be easily attainable. Happy research Smiling

Again, I can admit what I don't know, however you have still not provided the evidence necessary to discredit evolution as a valid scientific theory, just because I am not well versed in every aspect of evolution doesn't mean I take it on faith, just like I highly doubt you are well versed in all the fields of evolution, from medicine, biology, molecular biology, genetics, paleontology developmental biology, geology, physiology and anatomy. In the end there are things we won't know as individuals, however as a species as a whole we do, and even though you don't accept it, that's fine, but you haven't disproved evolution by any stretch of the imagination.

You asked why I accepted evolution and I answered. Your answer that god did it, doesn't really answer anything in the end, and you now have to prove god exists. To which you haven't done at all. If you don't like an honest answer of I don't know, I can't go beyond this part of the conversation, saying god did it, is the most dishonest answer someone can give. I may not know how the universe started, i may not know everything there is about evolution, I may not know everything about astronomy or geology, however what I do know, is that the possibility of the christian god existing is next to nil, as no evidence has ever shown that it exists. However the evidence that evolution is a fact is far far outweighs your god hypothesis so far.

Just lookin for intelligent debate. Can't prove God exists but I can make a good case at disproving evolution. If ya ain't up to challenging my claims cease commenting. 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Just lookin

scuppers wrote:

Just lookin for intelligent debate. Can't prove God exists but I can make a good case at disproving evolution. If ya ain't up to challenging my claims cease commenting. 

But you haven't made a good case for disproving evolution, that's what I keep telling you. So far you refuse to listen, it's ok I get it. However the reason I keep asking for you to prove god is because your trying to prove creation and in order to do that, you don't have to just disprove evolution, but you have to prove that god is the only other choice and you haven't. Even if you disprove evolution, creation isn't the only other option. If you understood how science works then you would understand why creation is discredited as a scientific possibility.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Let me

scuppers wrote:

Let me provide an example as examples can provide a clear path to understanding. I will use something I don't believe to help illustrate. When I was learning about the fossil evidence of Gigantopithecus an interesting discussion took place in the classroom. Because a jaw bone from this ape that dates to about 25,000 yrs ago was found in Asia another student asked the professor if this could account for the legends of Bigfoot in the Pacific Northwest.  The professor laughed and said it was ridiculous because that would mean it would have made an intercontinental journey. Another student chimed in with the New World monkey theory that is accepted and asked why Giganto couldn't have floated on a breakaway piece of land or crossed the Bering land bridge.. The professor's exact words were "you just had to bring that up." From here the classroom discussion took a break from the usual talk of teeth, jaws, sagital crests, etc. and a fun and lighthearted conversation emerged on Yeti and Bigfoot legends and how they seem to follow a path that originates in Asia and ends up in the Pacific Northwest. The professor's conclusion was that although a small possibility exists that Giganto can explain those legends, in the absence of disproof for what is accepted, such as a living one or fossils found in N. America that post-date 25,000 yrs ago, we must concede to the majority view. This of course doesn't stop some people from believing in Bigfoot and the evidence mentioned is why they continue to insist on their hypothesis. Now me and the professor both agreed that Giganto is not running around in N. America but we both also recognized their is a slim possibility. Lets relate this to my disbelief of evolution. I'll never reject what I see as the very slim possibility of it being valid but the problems of the theory at the highest levels of evolutionary theory convince me its not true. Thats why I use the evidence I do. If you can convincingly disprove my argument with this evidence or other examples by all means I'd love to hear it. I don't think anything you would provide that explains your belief is objectionable entirely. Only that I believe my evidence is superior. You will believe yours is superior. Until God makes his presence known or one animal is observed changing into another all we have is incomplete evidence. We can debate the conclusions we came to from this evidence but in the absence of disproof we have to consider the possibility, no matter how slim we feel it to be, that we might be wrong. I believe 99.99999999999% in my opinion but I have to keep the door minimally cracked open to other possibilities, even ones I reject.

And we come to the center of the shrubbery maze! You don't believe in gigantic North American apes, yet you allow for the slightest of possibilities that they may exist. I in contrast as an atheist, don't believe in gods and have completely ruled out the possibility of their existence. I would be interested to learn exactly how you ascertained this without asking, but I assure you that your superior evidence has failed you in this instance and that for the most part I don't completely rule out the possibility that anything could exist, even entities as implausible as gods.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Ya know what I don't

 Ya know what I don't understand? Why all you guys espouse the same old rehashed stuff all the time. "I don't believe in God, evolution has all this evidence proving it, I'm right and your wrong, blah blah blah." Its like you lay in wait to harp on vernacular inconsistencies at any given chance while I provide evidence and defend it. Just saying something doesn't give it teeth. Give some concrete examples to debate. I am sorely disappointed in ability of you guys defend your arguments. Ya don't even try it seems.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Since many

scuppers wrote:

 Since many of you revel in your perceived rational superiority when compared to theists please answer the following question: How does nothing produce something?

To me its seems more rational to hold theist views on creation. We at least have an answer. Now, many will not accept any notion of creation but its the only logical conclusion. Give me your answer to the question and many will see the irrationality of your explanations. Before you counter with the inevitable "Who created God" argument I'll oblige with an answer..... God did as he exists beyond our human perceptions of reality. If he was subject to the limitations in human reasoning he wouldn't be God. So try as you might to answer the question and be thorough. For example, don't just say the Big Bang. Explain how the matter formed out of nothing before the explosion. I look forward to the ridiculous explanations that make a mockery of this web site's name. William of Occam was correct.... the simplest explanation for creation is God.

 A simple answer would seem straight-forward enough... any five-year-old could answer this one....

"It's make-believe, silly!"

Counter-question: What, exactly, is the "cosmic egg"? Nobody knows... but that doesn't rule out it's existance, or that there was necessarily NOTHING before the big bang (most scientists believe that even the 'vacuum of space' is a substance  in of itself.)

I look forward to your equally ridiculous explanations regarding these notions and the fact that your reasoning doesn't extend very far from the bible, torah, koran, what have you... I also fondly remember how my whitebread elementary school teachers carefully skirted over my suggestion that Yhweh, Christ, Allah, and...... Ahura-Mazda(?) were separate entities, rather than the same creature.

edit: or figment of the imagination.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Ya know

scuppers wrote:

 Ya know what I don't understand? Why all you guys espouse the same old rehashed stuff all the time. "I don't believe in God, evolution has all this evidence proving it, I'm right and your wrong, blah blah blah." Its like you lay in wait to harp on vernacular inconsistencies at any given chance while I provide evidence and defend it. Just saying something doesn't give it teeth. Give some concrete examples to debate. I am sorely disappointed in ability of you guys defend your arguments. Ya don't even try it seems.

Nothing says "I'm right, and you're wrong" like executing heretics wholesale, or the wholesale annihilation of whichever warriors and philosophers happen to be occupying Israel at one particular moment or another.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


RankBaajin (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: That's not

scuppers wrote:

 That's not true. Religion is restrictive. It tells you are nothing compared God so you better limit your natural tendencies to kill, steal, or any other evil inclinations. Without God (which most all are by now) those limitations are lifted. Your only concern is material gain that makes your life easier. The evidence is all around us.

 

Is this a wind up?  So are you actually saying that devout theists have no interest in material gain, hmmn do you know the largest land owners in Scotland (where I am from) is the Church of Scotland, most of it won through the reformation, (killing catholics for material gain). the witch trials, (killing widows for material gain) and the highland clearances where large poor members of the community were persuaded under the threat of ex communication or promise of holy pilgramiges to new lands to leave their home to make space for sheep, more money you know. All of these were instigated or supported by the Churches whome in turn became the lands....and thats just off the top of my head.

 

I am sure even you Scuppers can see that there may have been on occasion instances where theists or churches have acted purely out of material gain, totally unrestricted. TV evangilists springs to mind.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: But you

scuppers wrote:
But you admit that you do throw out possibilities in the absence of disproof because you don't automatically believe everything that can't be disproved. So, sometimes you should throw out possibilities in the absence of disproof right?

I admit nothing.... I tolerate all ideas, assimilate them into my own beliefs/knowledge, and favor NONE of it.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
RankBaajin wrote:Is this a

RankBaajin wrote:


Is this a wind up?  So are you actually saying that devout theists have no interest in material gain, hmmn do you know the largest land owners in Scotland (where I am from) is the Church of Scotland, most of it won through the reformation,


I'm interested in material gains, does that make me a theist?


 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: How does

scuppers wrote:

How does nothing produce something?

 

Your flaw is a very basic one; which perhaps may be - somewhat humorously - summed up in the sentence "nature abhors a vacuum".

Most people who have done some abstract studies will have noticed that increased knowledge leads to increased awareness of own ignorance. This, I presume, creates an emotional vacuum in the not-so-robust personalities, and thus it collapses into "faith". As you yourself seem to be a fine example of. I fear that the East Kentucky gentleman may come over and spank me for this... but isn't it a Buddhistic concept which is called being aware of vacuity? From what I understand, it doubles for the classical Greek discipline of philosophy (which has later come to be associated with "speculation" ). Either way, my point is that it takes a disciplined mind to be able to navigate the unknown. A child, or a slave, or a simpleton; they will all instinctively seek protection in the more or less volitional bliss of ignorance.

Again, the humility of stating "I don't know" seems to be too much to bear for the elaborate kind of fool who thinks that a human being can understand how this world, the universe, or even yourself, is working. Personally, I am somewhere inbetween amused and annoyed at the blasphemous arrogance of all you people who are willing to substitute the noble quest for knowledge and understanding (which still remains void of hope for ever getting there) with a ridiculous "explanation" that ought to have been tossed on the scrap heap of history during medieval times.

As for the quoted question:

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Ya know what

scuppers wrote:
Ya know what I don't understand? Why all you guys espouse the same old rehashed stuff all the time. "I don't believe in God, evolution has all this evidence proving it, I'm right and your wrong, blah blah blah." Its like you lay in wait to harp on vernacular inconsistencies at any given chance while I provide evidence and defend it. Just saying something doesn't give it teeth. Give some concrete examples to debate. I am sorely disappointed in ability of you guys defend your arguments. Ya don't even try it seems.

Translation: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:scuppers

Kapkao wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 Since many of you revel in your perceived rational superiority when compared to theists please answer the following question: How does nothing produce something?

To me its seems more rational to hold theist views on creation. We at least have an answer. Now, many will not accept any notion of creation but its the only logical conclusion. Give me your answer to the question and many will see the irrationality of your explanations. Before you counter with the inevitable "Who created God" argument I'll oblige with an answer..... God did as he exists beyond our human perceptions of reality. If he was subject to the limitations in human reasoning he wouldn't be God. So try as you might to answer the question and be thorough. For example, don't just say the Big Bang. Explain how the matter formed out of nothing before the explosion. I look forward to the ridiculous explanations that make a mockery of this web site's name. William of Occam was correct.... the simplest explanation for creation is God.

 A simple answer would seem straight-forward enough... any five-year-old could answer this one....

"It's make-believe, silly!"

Counter-question: What, exactly, is the "cosmic egg"? Nobody knows... but that doesn't rule out it's existance, or that there was necessarily NOTHING before the big bang (most scientists believe that even the 'vacuum of space' is a substance  in of itself.)

I look forward to your equally ridiculous explanations regarding these notions and the fact that your reasoning doesn't extend very far from the bible, torah, koran, what have you... I also fondly remember how my whitebread elementary school teachers carefully skirted over my suggestion that Yhweh, Christ, Allah, and...... Ahura-Mazda(?) were separate entities, rather than the same creature.

edit: or figment of the imagination.

The "cosmic egg" you speak is a reference to the universe. The origin of this description can be found in the creation story of the Upanishads. But don't believe me read it (its widely available). The irony here is you take Hindu explanations for the unknown and apply them to the universe. That's not very atheistic. BTW, read the posts starting on pg.2 to the top of this pg. I readily admit my theology is lacking because I'm new to religion. I'll stick to history and anthropology with my debates for now. 


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:scuppers wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

scuppers wrote:
But you admit that you do throw out possibilities in the absence of disproof because you don't automatically believe everything that can't be disproved. So, sometimes you should throw out possibilities in the absence of disproof right?

I admit nothing.... I tolerate all ideas, assimilate them into my own beliefs/knowledge, and favor NONE of it.

Good misquote. This was directed at me not from me. Congratulations on the dishonest rhetoric. Credibility's slippin man.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 I always thought John

 I always thought John Knox, a peasant's son, was a Scottish figure who is generally praised in the country. He was enormously popular in Scotland during the Reformation and his energetic speeches and fist pounding against the Rome's reach into the country (i.e.  landholdings, tithes) garnered support from most Scots at the time. If you study any European history you will see that that the large landholdings were not exclusive to any church. Noble families (aristocrats) had titles that kept it that way. This was the case in all ancien regimes of the time and the accepted hiearchacal social order was just a way of life. The United Kingdom managed to stay this way a little longer than most because the people identified themselves with their tradition of equality before the law and a superior belief in their operations after witnessing the chaos exported by the French after the Revolution. But this is just context. You'll combat it. You can give me these examples but you will never trump the fact that the atheistic ideology of Communist China and the Soviet Union led to the deaths of about 100 MILLION of their own people for the "good" of the state. 

Here some sources for you: 

Coutisois, Stephane. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes Terror Repression. United States: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Zophy, Jonathan. Renaissance and Reformation: Dances Over Fire and Water. New Jersey: Pearson and Prentice Hall, 2009, 249-251.

Wasson, Ellis. A History of Modern Britain. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
RankBaajin wrote:scuppers

RankBaajin wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 That's not true. Religion is restrictive. It tells you are nothing compared God so you better limit your natural tendencies to kill, steal, or any other evil inclinations. Without God (which most all are by now) those limitations are lifted. Your only concern is material gain that makes your life easier. The evidence is all around us.

 

Is this a wind up?  So are you actually saying that devout theists have no interest in material gain, hmmn do you know the largest land owners in Scotland (where I am from) is the Church of Scotland, most of it won through the reformation, (killing catholics for material gain). the witch trials, (killing widows for material gain) and the highland clearances where large poor members of the community were persuaded under the threat of ex communication or promise of holy pilgramiges to new lands to leave their home to make space for sheep, more money you know. All of these were instigated or supported by the Churches whome in turn became the lands....and thats just off the top of my head.

 

I am sure even you Scuppers can see that there may have been on occasion instances where theists or churches have acted purely out of material gain, totally unrestricted. TV evangilists springs to mind.

Look in the GOD is Love post for my posts that go into detail about some of these and more. For Reformation look above.