Humans Do Not Need to Comfort Themselves With Fairy Tales

kellym78's picture

A response to Peter Bowden’s “God, Atheism, and Human Needs

Kelly O’Connor

Jan. 24, 2008

The idea that human beings universally need some form of mythological belief has been one of the mainstays of the defenders of faith for centuries. They claim that even if god doesn’t exist or religion causes violence and hatred, it’s acceptable because it makes some people feel better about the harsh realities of life. This is a multi-pronged deceptive ploy used to abdicate themselves from any responsibility for those actions and to keep people thinking that their assertion is correct.

Many people have either been raised without theistic belief or have abandoned theism and discovered even greater meaning and value for their lives. Peter Bowden assumes in his article “God, Atheism, and Human Needs” that proponents of atheism such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Onfray, and Dennett must provide “deeper insight into ourselves, our needs as human beings, and ways to conduct our lives.” In essence, a replacement for, rather than the elimination of, religion. Life does seem much simpler when all of the answers are handed to you on a silver platter (or aged papyri), but it eliminates the worthwhile exercise of introspection and discovery that one must engage in to formulate their own self-concepts, needs, and morals.

This makes Bowden’s claim that atheists are “[avoiding] a fundamental quest of the human race” even more absurd. Figuring these things out for oneself is infinitely more important, and difficult, than accepting an ancient dogma in its stead. Perhaps the reason why so many are opposed to self-examination is because it is exactly as I described it—exercise. It can be excruciatingly difficult to step outside of yourself, examine your beliefs, and dissect that which lies beneath your exterior. If one has been inculcated with the notion that whatever resides in there is dirty, depraved, and evil, that urge to integrate your beliefs and behavior will be furiously resisted and likely satiated with religion.

Being told that your worldview is incorrect and that it’s going to be a difficult process to regain your bearings once you realize that there is no grand plan for your life will often be interpreted as an attack. Even if doing nothing more than pointing out the harm that has been done under the auspices of piety, the news will not be received with accolades from the religious. Compartmentalization and rationalization (as in the psychological phenomenon) are fundamental aspects of maintaining any faith-based belief in the face of contrary evidence. Despite the common perception, it is not viciousness which compels us as atheists to speak out against religion. It is with the hope that we can help those who live under the ever-looming spectre of god’s presence to stop accepting the illusion of freedom and truly experience it.

Bowden points out that one of the charges frequently leveled against religion is its bellicosity. The reason that argument is so oft-used is because it is true. Religion has been the impetus for more violence than any other single reason throughout history. Was the acquisition of territory, resources, and power often a corroborating justification? Of course. Religion is unique, though, in the sense that it literally dehumanizes those with different beliefs, similar to the way that racism does. The adherents of a different religion are literally inferior to their opponents, and too often the drive to appropriate their land or wealth is intensified and rationalized by the division between the two groups. Evangelism has long been used as a cover for the usurpation of power from native inhabitants. After all, god would want to civilize the savages, now wouldn’t he? Certainly, religion is not the sole force, but it is definitely a contributing factor, and one that could be eliminated.

The two arguments that can be proposed to counter the case that the hazards of religion outweigh the benefits are the comfort and meaning it supposedly provides people and that religious groups may help less fortunate people. The latter is true, but only within certain confines. Missionaries who traverse the globe “helping people” often do little more than proselytize, and their aid may depend on your acceptance of their doctrine or willingness to attend church services. In the case of the catholic church in sub-Saharran Africa, it can actually be detrimental. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters may have similar prerequisites, although not all do.

Bowden asserts that “atheists are not into helping others in any organized way.” This is demonstrably false as there are more and more secular charities arising every day, but why would one expect there to be large charities funded by what essentially amounts to a non-group of people? Atheists are individuals with no churches and, until recently, little social networking. On an individual level, though, atheists are some of the world’s largest contributors to charities around the world. In fact, the number one philanthropist on Earth is an atheist. Ever hear of Bill Gates? How about Warren Buffet? That being said, I would encourage people to gather together and contribute in whatever way they are able, not to promote a group or a name, but to create a better world for every person. We are all united in the sense that we are humans sharing this planet, and that is infinitely more important than allegiances to imaginary dictators.

Bowden then comes full-circle back to the comfort/meaning/reason for living argument by claiming that we need a reason for being, that reason must be something “beyond the normalities of our daily lives”, and that religion provides it. First of all, I don’t know that making the claim that needing a reason for being is a fundamental attribute of human beings is entirely accurate, but it is plausible that most people desire that kind of affirmation.

This argument falls on its face in the next two steps, though. Why must this meaning be something greater than the daily activities in which we engage? Is life not made up of a series of days filled with these “normalities”? Normalities such as pursuing a career or education, caring for children, or just making it through this existence? What if there is no “greater purpose”? Will civilization suddenly vanish or will people adapt to being the agents in their lives instead of the pawns in a cosmic chess match? Furthermore, I will submit that religion only provides a façade of fulfilling either of the preceding “needs”.

Whether religion is an evolutionary adaptation making sense of a discordant existence or a spandrel of such processes, coming to terms with reality would only be the next step in our development. Holding on to the crutches that we once needed after the cast has been taken off is counter-productive, and as long as we do so, we will never run. Life can be frightening, bewildering, wonderful, and tedious. It can be mysterious, magical, and ordinary. It can be all of those things at once. Making up answers where there are none is not the solution, and in fact, prevents one from seeking answers themselves. Atheism is not the destruction of the quest for meaning—it is the necessary starting point for the journey.

 

    Kelly loves me, I

    Kelly loves me,

I love Kelly

Oh Kelly , .........

 

Wordplayer's picture

Quote:Making up answers

Quote:
Making up answers where there are none is not the solution, and in fact, prevents one from seeking answers themselves. Atheism is not the destruction of the quest for meaning—it is the necessary starting point for the journey.

 Quoted for truth.  Brilliantly put, Kelly!

~Wordplayer

"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." ~Groucho Marx

   I resent your attempt

 

 I resent your attempt to even put God on the same level of fairy tales. People don't believe in fairy tales. But most humans have always believed in God -- even the brightest minds in history.

And the disire or wish for something, does not logically prove that the object of that wish does not exist. If I desire Christmas to come, this does not logically prove Christmas will not come. The wish fulfillment argument rests on a very basic logical fallacy.

 

Kelly claims to be a former Christian. I have one comment to that:

 

"Those by the way side are they that hear; then comes the devil, and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

 

They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

 

And they which fell among thorns are they, which when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares, and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection (Jesus Christ; Luke 8:12-14).

lpetrich's picture

The most honest version of

The most honest version of Peter Bowden's argument was stated by someone named Plato almost 2400 years ago. He proposed that his Republic make its citizens believe in a religion that he called a "royal lie". And he made no excuses for his society's religion, arguing that it ought to be banned as full of bad examples like heroes lamenting and gods laughing.

The royal-lie theory of religion was also believed in by some other members of the Greco-Roman intelligentsia, like Polybius, Strabo, and Livy, and several centuries later, by Niccolo Machiavelli. Yes, him of his infamous guide to how to win in politics, The Prince. And half a century ago, the political philosopher Leo Strauss advocated much the same thing, admiring Plato's Republic.

However, most modern advocates of positions like this hide behind a posture of pseudo-agnosticism, claiming that if we cannot really know what is true in some objective sense, than we ought to believe in what may be expedient or convenient or pleasant in some way.

This is not to say that no sort of "royal lie" may be convenient to believe in, but if certain "royal lies" are, then it is best to be honest and up-front about it, rather than hide behind psuedo-agnostic posturing.

I even once knew someone who ended up inventing a religion for himself because he had been driven nuts by his fear of death -- he wanted to assure himself that his consciousness will continue beyond the death of his body. A rather woozy New-Agey one, it must be said, and one that he chose to be irrational about in order to maintain his sanity. 

thingy's picture

Incognitus wrote: I resent

Incognitus wrote:
I resent your attempt to even put God on the same level of fairy tales. People don't believe in fairy tales. But most humans have always believed in God -- even the brightest minds in history.

I resent your attempt to put your god or any gods on a level other than that of fairy tales.  Just because something is popular doesn't make it right.  These brightest minds you're thinking of were from a time where it was either dangerous to say otherwise, or just not a way people thought.  They were deist at most simply because it was so commonly accepted that no matter what there was still a god.  Nobody questioned it. 

Incognitus wrote:
And the disire or wish for something, does not logically prove that the object of that wish does not exist. If I desire Christmas to come, this does not logically prove Christmas will not come. The wish fulfillment argument rests on a very basic logical fallacy.

Yet desires and wishes are all christians seem to be able to come up with for proof of their gods.  Thanks for saving me the effort of rebuttal. 

 

Incognitus wrote:
Kelly claims to be a former Christian. I have one comment to that:

 "Those by the way side are they that hear; then comes the devil, and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

And they which fell among thorns are they, which when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares, and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection (Jesus Christ; Luke 8:12-14).

Wow, I'm confused as how to respond to this one.  Do I quote a line from Little Red Riding Hood, Three Little Pigs, 7 Dwarfs, or something else? 

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/

lpetrich's picture

Incognitus wrote:

Incognitus wrote:
I resent your attempt to even put God on the same level of fairy tales. People don't believe in fairy tales.

Yes, people have, in the form of belief systems that you reject.

Quote:
But most humans have always believed in God -- even the brightest minds in history.

Except that most people have not believed in the god of your religion, but in other gods -- gods that you have refused to worship. Pagan polytheisms had existed for millennia, as is abundantly documented in the Middle East, and hinted at elsewhere by archeological evidence.

And even among the Abrahamic religions, most people have believed in sects of it other than yours, like Islam or (I'm guessing) Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy or mainline Protestant sects.

(Bible-pounding snipped...)

I'm sure that Kelly needs no introduction to whatever Bible quotes you may want to throw at her; do you have any better argument than quoting the Bible?

  Another word on fairy

 

Another word on fairy tales. There is no evidence for fairy tales. We have direct evidence for God in history, science (cosmological argument, intelligent design, teleology, anthropic principle, etc), in history (the prophets, saints, fulfilled propecy, and the incarnation of Jesus Christ -- the Son of God and Hid resurrection, etc). Evidence in logic, epistemology, metaphysics, the super natural in general, the meta-ethical foundations for morality, etc, etc, etc).

 

So fairly tales and God are on entirely different levels. We have a convergence of data making the existence of God highly probable (infact impossible for Him not to exist).

 

The only thing that's a fair tale here is atheism. There is very little support for it. Only about 5% of human beings today claim to believe in atheism.

 

And atheism believes in the ultimate fairy tale of all: that the universe popped out of absolutely nothing lol

 

Give me a break.

Type: Fairy tale* (not fair

Type: Fairy tale* (not fair tale)

 

I have been through every conceivable test and temptation known to man. I grant I back slid a few times but I always came back to Christ. In my BACKSLIDING I even experimented with other religions. But I have never, ever once in my entire life, believed in atheism. I could never believe in atheism. I never once doubted God's existence.

 

At least I don't say like Hindu's and New Ager's that atheists have their lower shakras out of sink and need kundalini energy, etc.

 

I say that atheists know God exists, but they are intentionally and consciouslly reisting Him. This is what Paul said in Romans 1 and 2.

thingy's picture

Incognitus wrote: Another

Incognitus wrote:
Another word on fairy tales. There is no evidence for fairy tales. We have direct evidence for God in history, science (cosmological argument, intelligent design, teleology, anthropic principle, etc), in history (the prophets, saints, fulfilled propecy, and the incarnation of Jesus Christ -- the Son of God and Hid resurrection, etc). Evidence in logic, epistemology, metaphysics, the super natural in general, the meta-ethical foundations for morality, etc, etc, etc).

Really?  I've never seen any.  The closest I've seen is heresay, misunderstandings of science, and outright lies.  Your mention of intelligent design and "the super natural in general" just proves my point.

 

Incognitus wrote:
So fairly tales and God are on entirely different levels. We have a convergence of data making the existence of God highly probable (infact impossible for Him not to exist).

No, still on the same level.  The only accurate and actual data we have shows no sign of anything supernatural. 

 

Incognitus wrote:
The only thing that's a fair tale here is atheism. There is very little support for it. Only about 5% of human beings today claim to believe in atheism.

Believe in atheism?  Didn't think such a thing was possible.  Here's some news for you: Atheism is NOT a belief system.  It is a lack of belief. 

 

Incognitus wrote:
And atheism believes in the ultimate fairy tale of all: that the universe popped out of absolutely nothing lol

Another strawman.  That is a common outright lie spread by creationists.  No atheists say the universe popped out of absolutely nothing.  That's the christian point of view.  Some invisible sugar daddy in the sky popped in to existance out of nowhere, then created the universe out of nothing, then created the earth and everything on it out of nothing. 

Incognitus wrote:
Give me a break.

No, give US a break. 

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/

thingy's picture

Incognitus wrote: Type:

Incognitus wrote:
Type: Fairy tale* (not fair tale)

Yes, simple typo.  It's not worth becoming a grammar nazi over something small like that. 

 

Incognitus wrote:
I have been through every conceivable test and temptation known to man. I grant I back slid a few times but I always came back to Christ. In my BACKSLIDING I even experimented with other religions. But I have never, ever once in my entire life, believed in atheism. I could never believe in atheism. I never once doubted God's existence.

I have never once in my life believed in atheism either, nor could I believe in atheism.  As I said before - it's not a belief system, it's a lack of belief. 

Incognitus wrote:
I say that atheists know God exists, but they are intentionally and consciouslly reisting Him. This is what Paul said in Romans 1 and 2.

You just keep telling yourself that fairy tale if it helps you sleep at night.  The thread may be saying mankind as a whole, but there's always going to be one or two exceptions to the rule. 

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/

Hambydammit's picture

Quote: I say that atheists

Quote:
I say that atheists know God exists, but they are intentionally and consciouslly reisting Him. This is what Paul said in Romans 1 and 2.

Have you ever thought about how truly insane this point of view is?  You're suggesting that we know god exists, so we believe in him.  If we believe in him, we also must believe in heaven and hell.  If we believe in heaven and hell, we've consciously decided that we'd like to go to hell.

Do you have any concept of how fucked up insane someone would have to be to sign up for a trillion years of torture?  Do you realize how fucking insulting this idea is to the 1.1 billion people on the planet who are not theists?   You're suggesting that we are so fucked up in the head that we actually want to experience the worst pain imaginable for ever and ever.

Get a clue, dude.  Think for two seconds before letting ideas out of your head.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism

I liked the original post

I liked the original post Kelly, but the nut job that been posting on it has made this just a fabulously funny thread.

He's basically every hypothetically typical nut job christian rolled into one.

Charles Evolution's picture

Nice Job. Bowden sounds

Nice Job. Bowden sounds extremely confused.

I will add that Daniel Dennett is not quite convinced that immediately eliminating religion would be a good thing for all believers. He differs with Dawkins on this issue, and he's clear about this in Breaking the Spell.

For some people who have been raised religiously, becoming an atheist can provide a wonderful feeling of liberation from fairy tales and so forth. But for other new atheists it can be a slow slog in order to find that feeling. Many feel a deep sense of loss, as though they had lost their best friend and confidant (i.e., God). We shouldn't dismiss these feelings so easily, even if they are based on false beliefs.

The atheist Jean-Paul Sartre also talked about these feeling of loss in some of his writing. For Sartre, the loss of God was a traumatic experience, not initially a liberating one.

So, yes, we should move beyond these fairy tales, but it might not be as easy for some us as it is for others to make this transition.

Charles Evolution

 

 

Orangustang's picture

Prove to me that any of the

Prove to me that any of the stories in the Bible involing *magic* (anywhere from creating the universe in 6 days to a hippie walking on water) actually happened, and I will prove at least as well that Peter Pan was a real person who could fly. Taking a fairy tale seriously does not make it any more valid. It only makes more people angry when you call it by its proper description.

 PS: Kelly, I love the article. It's one of your best so far IMO.

The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
- Thomas H. Huxley

When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.
- Abraham Lincoln

   The Dawkins Delusion?:

  That didn't come out

 

That didn't come out right. Read

"The Dawkins Delusion,: by McGrath

Incognitus wrote:   I say

Incognitus wrote:

 

I say that atheists know God exists, but they are intentionally and consciouslly reisting Him. This is what Paul said in Romans 1 and 2.

 

I MUST repeat myself over and over again , why do you assume that if you are incapable of seeing anything beyond your narrowminded view of reality , everyone else is like you .

Ok here i am again . I was an atheist for as long as i can remember , grandma took care of that (she WANTED me to believe , she WANTS me to belive , have faith in chrit and shit , but having the bible read to me and 10 min later beowulf and cinderella...oh well they were allways on the same level , except that the bible gave me headakes and sometimes nightmares) , and later on i became an antitheist 

So what would you say if i told you I KNOW that you lie to everyone and yourself , you know there is no god but you are too weak to accept it so you keep taking your drugs(religion) . Ofcourse i cant make such a claim about you i have no clue what`s in your head 

Incognitus wrote: I resent

Incognitus wrote:
I resent your attempt to even put God on the same level of fairy tales. People don't believe in fairy tales.

That's the main distinction between the two: a comparison likely made to demonstrate this point.

Incognitus wrote:
But most humans have always believed in God --

It's equivocation to retroactively annex the provincial harvest and fertility deities, animist spirits, etc., in support of a specific deity to Judaism/Christianity/Islam. Even the OT texts differentiate. At best, you could argue for a belief in belief itself by this data, but it's not evidence for a specific religious claim.

Incognitus wrote:
even the brightest minds in history.

Cheap appeal to authority fallacy. No mind, great or small, has been able to substantiate religious claims. With millennia to do so, and with the majority of the world's population subscribing to some form of religion (and so at least somewhat interested in vindication before non-adherents to their faith), their failure to produce anything of substance is a damning proportion of failure.

Incognitus wrote:
And the disire or wish for something, does not logically prove that the object of that wish does not exist. If I desire Christmas to come, this does not logically prove Christmas will not come. The wish fulfillment argument rests on a very basic logical fallacy.

Which is why religious claims are intellectually bankrupt, being naked concepts in search of phenomenological reasons to suspect them in the first place. A total inversion of empiricism.

Incognitus wrote:
[bible quote lulz snipped]

   Yeah compassionate

   Yeah compassionate Charles Evolution , the tough "transition" .... good points ,

 .... But with loving Kelly and Sartre's help we are moving beyond destructive fairy tales.

Appeasing the religious is harmful to my pets , life could be better enjoyed by all .... 

.... mabey the big question is , does any of this matter ? ,  hey it's all I know so YES

, ask a kid , give them what they need , FREEDOM ,

Yeah what is freedom ? 

Freedom to die smiling .....

we are "condemed to be free"  Sartre !?!?

, getting in over my head , out , latter

passing to google http://www.nimbinaustralia.com/zenwatt/condemnedtobefree.html

paste   "I believe Sartre's whole purpose is to wake people from the dream of self-deception. Sartre gives people their freedom, releases them from the invisible strings that the theistic religions would have us believe connect us to an omnipotent puppeteer in the heavens.  Nothing could be a more optimistic, practical philosophy of existence than showing people they are free at all times. That they no longer have 'unseen', 'unknown' forces controlling their lives "

~~~ Thanks , iamgod  

Brian37's picture

Incognitus

Incognitus wrote:

 

Another word on fairy tales. There is no evidence for fairy tales. We have direct evidence for God in history, science (cosmological argument, intelligent design, teleology, anthropic principle, etc), in history (the prophets, saints, fulfilled propecy, and the incarnation of Jesus Christ -- the Son of God and Hid resurrection, etc). Evidence in logic, epistemology, metaphysics, the super natural in general, the meta-ethical foundations for morality, etc, etc, etc).

 

So fairly tales and God are on entirely different levels. We have a convergence of data making the existence of God highly probable (infact impossible for Him not to exist).

 

The only thing that's a fair tale here is atheism. There is very little support for it. Only about 5% of human beings today claim to believe in atheism.

 

And atheism believes in the ultimate fairy tale of all: that the universe popped out of absolutely nothing lol

 

Give me a break.

Somebody really indoctrinated you really bad. I feel sorry for you. You'd rather wallow in myth than face reality.

What would be so frighting about there not being a god? Do you think we'd all barbaque kittens?

OK EVERYONE, we've been made, the jig is up. Lets stop pointing out the absurdity of disimbodied beings knocking up girls and zombie gods surviving rigor mortis after 3 days.

Kelly, and everyone, lets be good atheists and get back to our roots of canibalism, throwing virgins in volcanos and our staple of lawlessness and pillaging, we wouldnt want to dissapoint our theist friend here.

Kelly, this stupid mask of challanging theists to question outragious claims isnt fooling this person. We must accept that Noah was real and handled poisonous cobras, and black widdows and dart frogs. We must accept that snakes do turn into wood, and that bears do maul children who call old men baldy.

We arnt fooling this one, lets get back to drooling and dragging our nuckles on the ground and give up questioning hocus pokus claims. 

Kelly, face it, Thomas Jefferson died in dept and that was God getting even with him for equating his son's birth to Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter.

GOD GONNA GET US KELLY, REPENT REPENT! 

 

 


"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Luigi Novi's picture

Whose the one utilizing logical fallacies?

Incognitus: I resent your attempt to even put God on the same level of fairy tales.

Luigi Novi: Resent it or not, both God and fairy tales have the same level of empirical support for them.

Incognitus: People don't believe in fairy tales.

Luigi Novi: In the first place, this is untrue, as Arthur Conan Doyle actually gave credence to the existence of fairies. In the second place, whether people believe in one and not the other has no bearing on whether it is an appropriate metaphor for theism, since it is the aspect in which they are similar that is emphasized when using it. Since both fairy tales and God have the same amount of scientific support for them, and since that is the aspect of both that was being emphasized, Kelly's use of the term was appropriate, vis a vis the viewpoint from which her essay is written.

Incognitus: But most humans have always believed in God -- even the brightest minds in history.

Luigi Novi: This does not mean that he exists.

Incognitus: And the disire or wish for something, does not logically prove that the object of that wish does not exist.

Luigi Novi: Who here said otherwise? Where in Kelly's essay is this idea indicated? This a twisting of the actual reasoning that theists use or imply, which is that the mere fact that they desire his existence means that he does exist, which is the real fallacy, since the desire or wish for something does not logically prove that the object of that wish does exist.

By arguing that it does not prove that it doesn't exist, you are disagreeing with something that no one ever said or implied.

Myths

If humans do not need to believe in myths, then why do people beleive in Evolution?

CalvinandHodge wrote: If

CalvinandHodge wrote:

If humans do not need to believe in myths, then why do people beleive in Evolution?

 

Woh ho ho! you sure got us there.  Shut down the site boys!

Believing in something due to evidence is a bit different than believing in something due to "faith".   Additionally, if I was shown a good reason NOT to believe in evolution, I wouldn't believe in it anymore.  That's the wonderful thing about being open to new ideas, and open to being wrong.

Beliving in myths and fairy tales doesn't allow for being wrong, because you are basing it on nothing to begin with.

Hambydammit's picture

Hey, Calvin, Can you give

Hey, Calvin,

Can you give us a brief explanation of how genetic recombination and mutation differ?

Also, could you give us a paragraph or two explaining how inheritable information is made into a functional gene product?

For that matter, do you know what a functional gene product is?

Where did you hear that evolution is not true?  From someone who studied it in college?  Or from someone who studied theology?

Calvin, after you admit to us that you don't know the first thing about evolution, would you explain, kindly, how you have the nerve to condemn something that has literally hundreds of thousands of volumes of new, corroborated, independently verified data, just in the last decade?    When you don't know jack shit about it?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism

thingy's picture

CalvinandHodge wrote: If

CalvinandHodge wrote:

If humans do not need to believe in myths, then why do people beleive in Evolution?

Uhh, it might have something to do with the fact that evolution isn't a myth?

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/

Prove what?

Hi:

I think that I do not need to "prove evolution" but that all I need to show is that it is a fairytale.

Science, and I believe that all here would agree with me, requires observation and not speculation. Science deals with facts and not speculation on those facts.

When we talk about Evolution are we talking about Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism? If we are talking about Darwinism, then you will have to explain to me which scientist actually observed a single-celled organism becoming a fish or a plant "billions of years ago"? If you cannot provide adequate facts (not speculation) then you have composed a "fairytale" and not the truth.

Does Neo-Darwinism answer the problems of Darwinism? Not in the slightest. It is more hocus-pocus than anything else. "The earth is traveling along over millions of years, and then, without explanation, bingo! all life changes." By what? Magic? Witchcraft?

So, until you tell me which "Darwinism" I am supposed to answer I cannot give you more detail.

Many scientists have turned to "Theistic evolution" for the answers to their problems. However, I fail to see how this helps atheism - since these scientists argue that even the evidence of Evolution proves the existence of God.

Many other scientists have devised "Intelligent Design." Seeing the intracacies in their respective scientific disciplines they have concluded that it is impossible for a "random mutation" process to create all of this complexity. It is natural and reasonable for anyone to see complexity in a system to infer a Designer.

You don't really believe that your computer, or car, was designed and built by a random process do you?

Mathematics has proven the theory of evolution (Darwinism or neo-Darwinism) false. Even given billions of years it is impossible to account for the composition of the DNA sequences for the most basic single-celled organism. Mathematics is the bedrock of all the sciences.

Evolution (Darwinism or neo-Darwinism) is the only scientific theory that does not need to factually prove its conclusions. It cannot. There was no objective observer living "billions of years ago" in order to verify the "millions of years" of supposed evolutionary processes.

Evolutionists can show the "facts" of what is called micro-evolution, and I will not deny it. Micro-evolution is proven in the Christian Bible (Genesis 30:41ff). Change within a species is an indisputable fact. What Evolutionists have to show is change between species. That is, a single-celled organism (one "species&quotEye-wink becoming a jellyfish (another species), a jellyfish (one species) turning into a fish (another species), a fish into a lizard, etc That is the fairytale of Evolution (Darwinism or neo-Darwinism).

Crossing a poodle with a German Shepherd creates a "Dog" - it does not create a new and different kind of "species." All of your supposed evidence confirms micro-evolution and not macro-evolution.

The smokescreen of the evolutionist argument is that they will pull out all of the verified scientific data for micro-evolution, and then claim that macro-evolution is proved.

Next to last, I will pull the provrebial rug out from under you: Prove, on purely naturalistic grounds, without presupposing any "god" or "law" or "design" what evolutionary process or genetic mutation which has proved to increase the information in a genome?

 Finally, The arguments of Richard Dawkins are so transparent that only one who is fanatical concerning evolution will not see them as such. For example, In The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins argues by creating a computer program that simulates a simple design becoming complex over many turns. His argument falls flat on its face when you consider that it took an intelligent man - like Dawkins - to design and create the computer program to begin with! Is Dawkins claiming that he is blind, ignorant, and dumb, and out of this ignorance he was able to design and construct a computer program that can simulate design. Would any ratioinal person without a bias consider such an argument reasonable?

 

Prove what?

[mod edit: double post]

Your ignorane is

Your ignorane is astounding.  I just don't have the time to reply to this right now and I'm sure someone else will...but seriously...it is clear that you don't know a damn thing about these things.  It simply amazes me that people can show so much confidence without knowing a damn thing.  It really shouldn't surprise me, that's really what religion is. But still...wow...pick up a fucking book if you want to have a serious conversation / debate and read what evolution is. 

Riiiiiiight

When Darwinism is shown in its true and correct light it becomes obvious to everybody how flawed it truly is.

Darwin:

"As man can produce, and certainly has produced, a great result by his methodical and unconscious means of selection (Darwin is referring to "micro-evolution&quotEye-wink what may not natural selection effect? Man can act only on external and visible characters. Nature, if I may be allowed to personify the natural preservation or survival of the fittest, cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they are useful to any being. She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects only for his own good: Nature only for that of the being which she tends ... It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages, and then so imperfect in our view into long past geological ages, that we see only that the forms of life are now different from what they formally were (macro-evolution)."

From: Origin of Species chapter 4, in my copy, pgs. 110-113 parenthesis mine.

This argument used by Darwin back in the 1800's is still the main argument of Evolutionists today.

I am confident because I can produce a hundred similar quotations from evolutionists along the same line. You, sir, are trying to shout the truth down with your bad manners.

Creationist Challenge: Read

Quote: I think that I do


Quote:

I think that I do not need to "prove evolution" but that all I need to show is that it is a fairytale.

Science, and I believe that all here would agree with me, requires observation and not speculation. Science deals with facts and not speculation on those facts.


If science didn't deal with speculation, it would never progress.  Hypothesis is neccessary before forming theory.

Quote:



When we talk about Evolution are we talking about Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism? If we are talking about Darwinism, then you will have to explain to me which scientist actually observed a single-celled organism becoming a fish or a plant "billions of years ago"? If you cannot provide adequate facts (not speculation) then you have composed a "fairytale" and not the truth.


Darwinism? Not familiar with Darwinism.

If we're talking Natural Selection / Evolution...no one ever claimed that a single-celled organism became a fish or a plant.  That is simply ludicrous and defies the entire concept of extremely small changes over an immense amount of time.

We don't have proof of what happened then, what we have is proof that evolution exists and occurs and has occured.  Every step along the way has not been proven, but educated guesses can be made.

Quote:


Does Neo-Darwinism answer the problems of Darwinism? Not in the slightest. It is more hocus-pocus than anything else. "The earth is traveling along over millions of years, and then, without explanation, bingo! all life changes." By what? Magic? Witchcraft?



Evolution does not attempt to theorize about the start of life.

Quote:


So, until you tell me which "Darwinism" I am supposed to answer I cannot give you more detail.



Lets just stick with Evolution.  And if we're talking Darwin, lets stick with Evolution by Natural Selection.

Quote:


Many scientists have turned to "Theistic evolution" for the answers to their problems. However, I fail to see how this helps atheism - since these scientists argue that even the evidence of Evolution proves the existence of God.

Many other scientists have devised "Intelligent Design." Seeing the intracacies in their respective scientific disciplines they have concluded that it is impossible for a "random mutation" process to create all of this complexity. It is natural and reasonable for anyone to see complexity in a system to infer a Designer.



Many is a gross over statement.


Quote:


You don't really believe that your computer, or car, was designed and built by a random process do you?



No.  But I have specifications, and can track it back to the designer.

Quote:


Mathematics has proven the theory of evolution (Darwinism or neo-Darwinism) false. Even given billions of years it is impossible to account for the composition of the DNA sequences for the most basic single-celled organism. Mathematics is the bedrock of all the sciences.

Evolution (Darwinism or neo-Darwinism) is the only scientific theory that does not need to factually prove its conclusions. It cannot. There was no objective observer living "billions of years ago" in order to verify the "millions of years" of supposed evolutionary processes.

Evolutionists can show the "facts" of what is called micro-evolution, and I will not deny it. Micro-evolution is proven in the Christian Bible (Genesis 30:41ff). Change within a species is an indisputable fact. What Evolutionists have to show is change between species. That is, a single-celled organism (one "species"Eye-wink becoming a jellyfish (another species), a jellyfish (one species) turning into a fish (another species), a fish into a lizard, etc That is the fairytale of Evolution (Darwinism or neo-Darwinism).

Crossing a poodle with a German Shepherd creates a "Dog" - it does not create a new and different kind of "species." All of your supposed evidence confirms micro-evolution and not macro-evolution.

The smokescreen of the evolutionist argument is that they will pull out all of the verified scientific data for micro-evolution, and then claim that macro-evolution is proved.

Next to last, I will pull the provrebial rug out from under you: Prove, on purely naturalistic grounds, without presupposing any "god" or "law" or "design" what evolutionary process or genetic mutation which has proved to increase the information in a genome?


Admittadly I don't have all the answers, but my ignorance does not justify the jump to "god".  There is even less evidence for such a dramatic jump to the top of mount improbable.



Quote:


 Finally, The arguments of Richard Dawkins are so transparent that only one who is fanatical concerning evolution will not see them as such. For example, In The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins argues by creating a computer program that simulates a simple design becoming complex over many turns. His argument falls flat on its face when you consider that it took an intelligent man - like Dawkins - to design and create the computer program to begin with! Is Dawkins claiming that he is blind, ignorant, and dumb, and out of this ignorance he was able to design and construct a computer program that can simulate design. Would any ratioinal person without a bias consider such an argument reasonable?



I don't have the book in front of me but I know he's generally used the example to demonstrate how extremely complex and how greatly things can change over a long time with extremely tiny itterations.  It's not a proof of evolution, it's an explaination.

Even if I accepted all of your claims and said that Evolution didn't happen.  Who knows, maybe science will one day prove just that.  This does not give any justification for supernatural creators.  Just because when you were one you didn't know where mom went when she hid behind her hands that doesn't mean that she actually dissapeared and had magical powers.  You were just ignorant and didn't understand or know any better.

The conclusion of supernatural is illogical and based on nothing.  There is a lot of evidence out there that supports evolution from fossil records, to small scale testing.  There is not enough evidence to suggest that Natural Selection is the mechanism that runs evolution, but no one claims Natural Selection is fact.  We can hypothesis, and then attempt to prove.  If the evidence comes in false, then we move on and try other ideas.

Reasonable proof is all I am asking for

Tarpan:

Thank you for that kind response.

A hypothesis is based on observed evidence. Do you have observed evidence for macro-evolution?

Natural Selection is a part of Darwinism. See his book chapter 4. I think that you are equivocating here.

You are not aware that Evolution teaches that life began in the Ocean through single-celled organisma? How many times have I heard the Evolutionist mantra: "Life began in the Oceans billions of years ago..."? Or, the many charts that Evolutionists draw up to show the progression of life from the Ocean to Man? Here is one from the Gould Library going from bottom to top:

http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/library/now/exhibits/wallcharts/evolution/

 If you deny that evolutionists teach life beginning with single-celled organisms in the Ocean billions of years ago, then in what form did life begin?

I appreciate your candor when you wrote:

Quote:
We don't have proof of what happened then, what we have is proof that evolution exists and occurs and has occured.  Every step along the way has not been proven, but educated guesses can be made.

But an "educated guess" can still be wrong. We are told everywhere that "Evolution is factual" "Evolution is scientific" "Evolution is irrefutable." Yet, when pressed for the facts we are told that these are "educated guesses."

I did not ask about speculating on how life began. I asked for proof of neo-Darwinism.

Evolution by natural selection is Darwinism.

Many is not a gross overstatement. I will provide for you, if you like, a long list of scientists that openly believe in Creationism. Such a list does not include Theistic Evolutionists - of which there is also a long list, or, the more popular Intelligent Design scientists - another growing list of scientists who disbelieve in Natural Evolution.

You seem to think that I am trying to prove the existence of God on this thread. I am not. It is the bold claims of Evolutionists that state that Evolution is irrefutable, it is scientific, and should not be questioned by any reasonable person. Well, as a reasonable person I am asking for your evidence:

Prove to me, from a purely materialistic postion, that Natural Selection is the driving force for macro-evolution. I am not asking for proof of micro-evolution. You show me all the proof that Evolutionists use for micro-evolution, and I will say "Yea and Amen!" to it.

Micro-evolution is the scientific fact that changes can occur within a species. This is not disputed, and is upheld by the Bible (referenced before, Gen. 30:41ff). We see many varities of Dogs, for example, Poodles, Terriers, and German Shepherds, but we never see a change between species. We never see, for example, a Dog turning into a Horse.

Now, I know you are going to say that a Dog turning into a Horse is ridiculous, but that is exactly what macro-evolution is all about:

A fish, for example, turning into a lizard over billions of years. You look at the chart cited above and you will see that over the course of billions of years a fish will be turned into a living breathing human being.

Macro-evolution is the fairytale of the evolutionists. The fossil record is not "proof" of macro-evolution. It is speculation on some bones dug up out of the ground. For example: Nebraska Man was used as proof for evolution at the infamous Scopes Trial. Now, the "Creationists" at the trial were lampooned for their lack of scientific ability. Yet, Nebraska man was later found to be the remains of a pig, and not an ape/man at all. The "expert" "scientific" evolutionists could not tell the difference between the tooth of an ape (which is what they said it was) and that of a pig?

The "who knows" argument is not valid, because the argument could go the other way: "Who knows maybe scientists will discover that God truly does exist?" I am not arguing this I am simply pointing out that relying on such a statement is a fallacy.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am simply asking for your proof of macro-evolution from a purely materialistic standpoint. Is that too much to ask?

If you want proof for the existence of God, then I would suggest you open up the Christian Holy Bible and start reading. You will find that it is God speaking through the words of men directly to you, Hebrews 1:1,2 reads:

God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

  Atheists shouldn't be

 

Atheists shouldn't be impressed with people like Dawkins and his arguments. Those type of arguments have been refuted time and time again.

DuckPhup's picture

Believe in Evolution?...

CalvinandHodge wrote:
If humans do not need to believe in myths, then why do people beleive in Evolution?

 

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, I am going to refer to 'science' and 'religion' as if each was some king of abstract 'entity'... which, of course, they are. 'Religion', for example, can be seen (from a macro viewpoint) as having a kind of 'survival' instinct. From the same perspective, 'science' can be seen to have an innate 'curiosity'.
The first thing to do is to get your attention and to dispel some misconceptions... and from your question, it is fairly easy to guess what some of those misconceptions are. So, here are a few tidbits that are intended shake up a few of those misconceptions...

  1. Science does not 'prove' things... and only the scientifically ignorant think that science proves things.
  2. DNA does not 'evolve'... and scientists do not think that DNA evolves.
  3. Organisms (creatures) do not 'evolve'... and science does not think that organisms evolve.

OK... that was a dope-slap. Each of those bold statements will be clarified, below.


First... think about language. It is perfectly acceptable, in the course of ordinary, every-day conversation, to say things like "I saw the sun rise this morning". Everybody understands exactly what you mean, and everybody ALSO knows (or should know) that the sun did not REALLY rise, and that you do not really THINK that the sun actually 'rose'. We know that it is just an illusion... a perceptual effect arising from the FACT that the earth rotates... and the statement is a description of the illusion, which is, in essence, a convenient fiction. But nobody cares about that. Nobody would insist, or even suggest, that in order to be precise in our speech, and to separate the 'illusion' from 'reality', everybody should go around saying things like "This morning I fulfilled the role of an observer as the sun was revealed to my line-of-sight as a consequence of the earth's rotation."
In the very same sense, it is perfectly acceptable, in the course of ordinary, every-day conversation, to say things like "humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor"... and everybody (should) ALSO know that some ancestor did not REALLY give birth to a human, or transform into a human over the course of its life... that it is just an illusion... a perceptual effect arises from the FACT that over time, it APPEARS as though one kind of thing has transformed into another kind of thing. Admittedly, cartoon sequences portraying the transition from ape-like precursor - to - human only encourages people to accept that 'illusion' as 'reality'. But here's the thing... there is a segment of society that WANTS people to think that 'science' is asserting the ILLUSION to be 'true'. In fact, religious puppet-masters go out of their way and intentionally manipulate their scientifically ignorant constituency into thinking that the cartoon-version is ACTUALLY how scientists perceive evolution, and 'believe' it.
Next... science and 'proof'. Science does not 'prove' things. 'Proof' is for logicians, mathematicians, coin collectors and distillers of alcoholic beverages. Proof in science is applicable only in the 'negative' sense... i.e., hypotheses and theories must be 'falsifiable'. When scientists do experiments to validate 'predicted' experimental results , or evaluate 'facts' both in nature-present and nature-past, they are NOT trying to 'prove' they are RIGHT... they are trying to FIND OUT if they are WRONG. NOT being wrong simply builds confidence that one is on the right track... it 'proves' nothing. 
SIDEBAR: OK... this is as good a place as any to interject an idea... a 'truth'... that you should keep in mind as you read the rest of this. After this interjection, you might also want to go back and re-read my previous off-putting statement about 'puppet-masters'.

'Belief' is the ILLUSION of knowledge... a lame and pathetic substitute for ACTUAL knowledge... and it is the stock-in-trade of religion... along with 'faith'. Faith is a lame and pathetic substitute for facts and evidence. Put these two things together, and you come away thinking that you 'know' something... feeling like you 'know' something... when, in fact, you REALLY do not know at all. This makes ACTUAL knowledge... and its running-mate, 'reason'... the deadly enemy of religion.
 
ACTUAL knowledge lurks as a constant background threat, and a looming danger to religion's main product-line... the ILLUSION of knowledge... the promise of salvation... and the lure of eternal life. It is because of this that 'religion' stands in opposition to 'science'... because 'science', as a primary SOURCE of knowledge, has put the lie to the ILLUSION of knowledge that is purveyed by religion over and over again, throughout history. Science does not intend to do that... that's just the way that it goes... collateral damage. Science is just trying to go about the business of understanding nature... but religion tends to take it personally. So, when what science reveals something that happens to conflict with what religion asserts to be the 'truth' (dogma), then religion is forced to try to subvert and discredit what science has learned... and to try to subvert, discredit and abase science itself... as a simple matter of survival. Loss of credibility inevitably leads to loss of 'believers'... which leads to loss of wealth and power. 

One should take note that over all of that time, religion has NEVER... not once... NOT EVER... reclaimed a bit of 'biblical truth' that science has dispelled. The ONLY recourse that religion has had when science (previously natural philosophy) has inadvertantly kicked them in the balls... AFTER spending a couple hundred years resisting the new knowledge by torturing  people, burning them at the stake of chucking them into vats of boiling oil, of course... is to have theologians and apologists start waving their arms and magically transform what was once holy, inviolable, divine, cosmic god-given biblical 'truth' into 'allegories' and/or 'metaphors'... 

... and THEN blithely proclaim that these 'truths' have ALWAYS been allegories and/or metaphors... 

... and that they have always KNOWN that they were allegories and/or metaphors... 

... and THEN take credit for the discoveries that revealed that the biblical 'truths' were actually myths, misconceptions, or outright lies... oops... scratch that...  were actually allegories and/or metaphors.

Note that I said that religion is "... forced to try to subvert and discredit what science has learned." It would probably be more accurate and appropriate to say "... reduced to trying to subvert and discredit what science has learned." 'Reduced', because religion has LOST the political power which previously had given them leave to simply torture and kill anyone who dared to attempt to convey 'non-biblical' knowledge, or share 'heretical' thoughts. In the place of torture instruments, vats of boiling oil and the threat of the stake, we now have TBN, CBN, Answers In Genesis, Ken Ham, Dr. Dino, and 'Rapture' video games. 

From the scientifically ignorant, we keep hearing things like "Evolution hasn't been proven. It's not a fact... it's just a theory. Belief in evolution is the same thing as 'belief' in a god... it's just another religion." Of course, these are not original thoughts... they are slogans that were picked up and learned from the pulpit... and parroted.
Well... of course... evolution IS a 'theory'... but the word 'just' is entirely misappropriate, and misleading... and a scientific 'theory' is much more than just an idea. Of course, religious puppet-masters know this... but they also know that their scientifically-ignorant constituency does not have the sense to go to scientists to find out what 'science' thinks or says, because they have convinced that constituency that 'science' cannot be trusted... and that the only way to understand what science 'thinks' or 'says' is to listen to what 'religion' TELLS THEM 'science' thinks or says.
So... in terms of the religious... you can think of them falling into one of two categories... the deceived and the deceivers... the bamboozled and the bamboozlers... the puppets and the puppet-masters... however you want to frame it. The really insidious thing about it, though, is that the bamboozled are coerced or tricked into doing the work of the bamboozlers.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." ~ Carl Sagan (on religion)
That was a digression. Back to science. In science, a theory occupies a higher stratum of importance than mere 'facts'... and theories do not INVENT facts... theories EXPLAIN facts. 
The Theory of Evolution is NOT a matter of 'belief'. The Theory of Evolution is an explanatory (and predictive) framework which EXPLAINS the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms (creatures) changes, over time (evolves).
That's it. That's all.
OK... we've taken care of item # 1 from that brief list that I started with... now on to #s 2 and 3... and add a 4th item...

2. DNA does not 'evolve'... and scientists do not think that DNA evolves. 

DNA undergoes mutations (random).

3. Organisms (creatures) do not 'evolve'... and science does not think that organisms evolve. 

It is the gene pool that 'evolves'.

Organisms (creatures) are essentially the 'proxies' for altered DNA, playing out the 'game' of survival/procreation in 'meat space'. DNA whose proxy organisms manage to procreate get to move on to the next round... kind of like Jeopardy. This is where 'natural selection' plays out. 'Survival of the fittest' is a complete misapplication of the concept... it implies (and is usually interpreted to mean) faster, stronger, smarter, etc... able to take, rather than share. Granted... in some cases it MIGHT mean that. But MORE often, it means something like better camouflage... slightly better tolerance for arid conditions... a new protein that permits the use of a food source that was previously toxic to the organism... etc. THAT is 'natural selection'... ANYTHING that increases the STATISTICAL PROBABILITY that an organism will survive long enough to procreate... and that is ALL that it means. 

4. It is the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms... the 'gene pool'... that 'evolves' (changes, over time). Not creatures... not DNA... the GENE POOL.

So... the Theory of Evolution identifies two (2) mechanisms which account for the observed biological fact that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes, over time (evolves)... >> Genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequency within a local population, over time.
 >> Natural selection... the "non-random replication of randomly varying replicators" (Dawkins' excellent phrase). 
 It is the mutations of DNA which are random... the survival of the organisms which have conveyed those mutations into meat-space is (for the most part, and only in the statistical sense) non-random. These mechanisms cannot cope with or account for occurrences like volcanic eruptions, flash floods, meteor strikes, etc.
All of this rubbish about 'missing links' and 'transitional forms' is just that... rubbish... a 'straw man argument' that was invented by creationists to capture the minds of the scientifically ignorant. Every form... every creature... every organism... every entity... is a 'transitional' form... a manifestation of what a tiny segment of a population's gene pool presently IS... a snapshot taken on the path to whatever it is that the gene pool is becoming. When we look at a fossil, we are looking at a very low resolution snapshot of what the gene pool of a certain localized and specialized population of organisms was capable of manifesting in meat-space, at a given point in time.

The efforts involving the search for fossils has NOTHING to do with 'proving' the Theory of Evolution... it has only to do with increasing our knowledge base... of painting a more clear picture... a higher resolution picture... of the STEPS that were ACTUALLY involved in the process of life on earth arriving at where it is today. 

Hambydammit's picture

Hey, thanks, duck. And

Hey, thanks, duck.

And thank you to the theists who have proven, yet again, for theists, knowledge of a thing has never been a prerequisite to condemnation of it. 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism

Evolution

Hamby:

You can comfort yourself in your own ignorance by making Hasty Generalizations if you like. However, who is convinced by your stupidities?

 Evolution: Development of species from earlier forms, as an explanation of origins (Oxford Dictionary).

What does Darwin use as an example of Natural Selection? The beak of a finch? Postulating that somehow "over millions of years" such examples of "Natural Selection" will produce an entirely different "species"?

It seems you have some more reading to do. Magilium has a link for you to investigate

kellym78's picture

The only person in need of

The only person in need of more reading here is you. There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution, as you people like to put it. It is all one process over differing periods of time. The obvious speciation events occur slowly and are not generally observable within one lifetime. If you do not know that by now, then I fear you are likely too ignorant (or dogmatic) for any of us to hope to persuade you of the idiocy of your argument.

Keep up the attitude and we're going to have problems, k thx. 

Hambydammit's picture

Quote: Evolution:

Quote:
Evolution: Development of species from earlier forms, as an explanation of origins (Oxford Dictionary).

electricity: 3.the science dealing with electric charges and currents.

Now, would you please explain to me, from only the information given, what is the relationship between the conventional nomenclature for current, and the actual motion of electrons?

You can't do it from the dictionary definition, can you?  That's because the science of electricity requires an awful lot of knowledge, not just a brief explanation of a general concept.

Can you see how inane your supposed display of evolution is?  You have no clue how evolution works.  Hell, you could have answered my question from earlier in the thread by just googling the terms and regurgitating the answers, but you didn't even do that.

You are ignorant, and you are unconscionably arrogant for presuming to tell people with PhDs that everything they've studied for years and years is wrong because a fucking dictionary definition doesn't make sense to you.

 

Quote:
What does Darwin use as an example of Natural Selection? The beak of a finch? Postulating that somehow "over millions of years" such examples of "Natural Selection" will produce an entirely different "species"?

What is so difficult for you to understand?  Darwin was not an evolutionary scientist.  He observed and documented evidence of evolution, but he was clueless as to the way it actually worked.  We've got a century of science since Darwin which explains and accurately predicts, right down to the level of individual proteins, exactly how evolution works.

Are you just not smart enough to understand that the word "species" is an imprecise generalization that we use to categorize organisms?  Every single organism that has ever lived has been a transitional organism, and we use classification systems to make it easier for us to organize and speak of different organisms.

There was never a time when there was momma ape and baby human.  Over hundreds of thousands of generations, our ape-like ancestors gradually became more human-like.  In the books, we say, "This is human, and this is ape-like ancestor," but there simply is no dividing line, other than the observation of unique individuals from various populations.

I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to try to explain this to you.  You're either not smart enough to understand it or too arrogant to admit your ignorance or too scared to find out that you're wrong.  I don't care which.  

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism

thingy's picture

I'd like to thank Tarpan and

I'd like to thank Tarpan and Hamby for their posts in this thread.  Most replies have been posted during hours where I'm fast asleep.  I don't think there's anything I have wanted to say that you two haven't already covered.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/

ProzacDeathWish's picture

CalvinandHodge wrote:

CalvinandHodge wrote:

 

A hypothesis is based on observed evidence. Do you have observed evidence for macro-evolution?

Do you have observed evidence regarding the hypothesis that Adam and Eve were created supernaturally ?

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling

FallenKnight's picture

Resent this....

Incognitus said, "I resent your attempt to even put God on the same level of fairy tales."

I agree, I think Aesop, Hans Christian Andersen, Rudyard Kipling and the brothers Grimm were much better at telling a cohesive story that doesn't costantly contradict itself.

 

Let's compare the "word of god" (the Buy-bull) with well-known (other) fairy tales:

 

 

Talking animals/inanimate objects:

OT bible- Check!

Fairy Tales- Check!

Object lessons in story form:

OT/NT bible- Check!

Fairy Tales- Check!

Told to children to frighten them into subservience:

OT/NT bible- Check!

Fairy Tales- Check!

Protagonist(s) wrongfully subjugated by Evil Overlord/King/Stepmother:

OT/NT bible- Check!

Fairy Tales- Check!

Condones slavery/forced servitude:

OT/NT bible- Check-O-La!!

Fairy Tales- Not really...

Asks the reader to accept totally preposterous claims as undiluted fact:

OT/NT bible- Check-O-Rama!!

Fairy Tales- Not even close!

Promotes violence and intolerance for differing opinions/beliefs:

OT/NT bible- Check! And Check!

Fairy Tales- You wish!

Contains stories of divinely sanctioned genocide:

OT bible- Exhaustively

Fairy Tales- None that I ever read or heard.

Greenlights incest, child molestation & genital mutilation:

OT/NT bible- Ad Nauseum

Fairy Tales- You've got to be joking...

 

So in conclusion, your sacred text doesn't quite stack up to fairy tales (none do, actually) so I share your resentment!

 

   WOW this

   WOW this DuckPhup brain ! (read that post above)

Thanks, .... I fell much better now, .... about being a human on this earth ....

   I tracked and googled DuckPhup

only 3 RRS posts, but lots more in google ....

, rants on physics, politics and religion

Jefferson and Einstein rolled into one ! Yeah evolution !

 Hey DuckPhup , what kind of vitamins are you on , I need those !!!! Smile 

, and thanks again Kelly, see what is happening !

yeah RRS ..... I O U

darth_josh's picture

Not to be too obnoxious,

Not to be too obnoxious, but I would like to present observable, undeniable, irrefutable PROOF of evolution that even a theist(unless they're too far gone) must accept.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present the common influenza virus:

http://www.hhmi.org/news/ferguson2.html

Please read the whole article for once. You'll notice that this one is dated 2003, but we need to catch you guys up.

While you're there theists, you can sign up to receive the quarterly publication of HHMI magazine and become more informed about your nemesis, the scientific community.

Now, shall we return to semantics or should we look at layman microbiology some more until something 'clicks'.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.

Hope after death

What do atheists hope for after they die?

Nick Fast wrote: What do

Nick Fast wrote:
What do atheists hope for after they die?

I'll expend all my hope beforehand when it's useful.

  xlint question and

  xlint question and answer  Nick Fast/magilum  

Why do people think life is gift ? We arrive screaming from the womb and never fully recover from the shock .... 

Life is pain and fear, Death is the peacful bliss from which we came and return .... 

Why not just trust DOG and relax ???? ...... Undecided 

  

Pres. Candidate Mike Gravel on Evolution/Opressivness of Religon

Mike Gravel would like to have his video regarding the Oppressive Nature of Religion featured in your "Latest News" section on the front page. To date, Mike Gravel is the ONLY Presidential candidate running to declare publicly his total support for Evolution, Science as well as recognizing the oppressive nature of Religion.

Mike is also running on a platform of increased funding for Science,(half of the United States Budget under his economic plan) and totally discarding any notion of Creationism whatsoever in the public education system. Mike believes education comes first before anything.

It would be not only a great favor for us, but very beneficial for everyone to see that they do in fact have a choice of a candidate who not only shares Richard Dawkins`s views on the current status of Science but also feels the same about Religion.

Here is the official video that we would like featured:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYh5NUYCYsM

Thank You Sincerely,
Adam R. Abeles

--
Adam R. Abeles
Chief Biological Science Advisor
Evolution@Gravel2008.us

Mike Gravel for President 2008
www.Gravel2008.us

saem arguments over and over

Based on what I am seeing I keep reading that people do not believe fairy tales. As a father of 2 lovely girls I have to laugh my oldest very much believs in the tooth fairy, Santa and has trouble seeing the difference between Harry Potters (realness) and the realness of the evening news. It is the source of many conversations and as she is starting to learn the difference between reality and fantasy.

With the aforementioned said. The Bible quotes being used before are far from authoritative. Consider the many re-writtings and errors in them plus the fact that Jesus was only elected the immortal son of god by a very narrow margin. Thank you Catholic religion for yet another BS fairy tale.

Presuppositionalist's picture

Quote: The idea that human

Quote:
The idea that human beings universally need some form of mythological belief has been one of the mainstays of the defenders of faith for centuries. They claim that even if god doesn’t exist or religion causes violence and hatred, it’s acceptable because it makes some people feel better about the harsh realities of life. This is a multi-pronged deceptive ploy used to abdicate themselves from any responsibility for those actions and to keep people thinking that their assertion is correct.

 

You cannot prove that. You have no reason to believe that. Fideism is a strong position. This is a ridiculous ad hom against the greatest minds of the past thousand years.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.

Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:
Quote:
The idea that human beings universally need some form of mythological belief has been one of the mainstays of the defenders of faith for centuries. They claim that even if god doesn’t exist or religion causes violence and hatred, it’s acceptable because it makes some people feel better about the harsh realities of life. This is a multi-pronged deceptive ploy used to abdicate themselves from any responsibility for those actions and to keep people thinking that their assertion is correct.

You cannot prove that. You have no reason to believe that. Fideism is a strong position. This is a ridiculous ad hom against the greatest minds of the past thousand years.

I'll engage it on the level it merits.

No, it's not.