I assume that everyone atheistic believes we are a product of random chance brought about by millions of years of evolution. This is something that is completely unproven and in fact requires just as much faith as belief in a deity.
You clearly don't understand evolution and it has been repeatedly scrutinized and verified for decades. It requires no faith at all.
Of these six, only one is supported by evidence. The other are supported by theory and faith.
You should do a lot more research into the subject. All of those subsets of evolution are veifiable and evidential assertions that are subject to review. If they were articles of faith, they would not be scientific theories.
My faith in God is no less religious than your (this is a generality, not directed at a specific person) faith in "science."
You're woefully ignorant of science and evolution if you're not simple being dishonest. You have absolutely no evidence for your God. Science has provided ample evidence and proven many times over the validity of current evolutionary theories and processes. The finer points of some subsets of evolutionary theories are argued over to this day, but these are arguments of detail and process, not arguments over the validity of the concept.
There is not a single logical controversy over the theory of evolution at either scale. You're simply wrong.
The overarching point I'm making is that there are dozens (hundreds?) of species that have a divided hoof, scattered through 6 continents. There are dozens (hundreds?) of animals that chew the cud, again scattered through 6 continents. Of these hundreds of species, there are only 3 animals (camel, hyrax, rabbit) that chew cud but don't have a split hoof. There is only 1 family of animals in the world that has a split hoof, but doesn't chew cud.
I think the fact that somebody from over 3 thousand years ago knew that is pretty incredible. And it seems logical to me that you could not travel enough on your donkey at that point in history to compile that list.
I'll have to ask you, again, to go study genetics and evolutionary biology if that piques your curiosity. The explanations for these things, in a rational manner, can be found within textbooks and require you to make no irrational leaps of faith. The fact that someone wrote about cud-chewing animals in a society largely driven by animal husbandry is not at all incredible.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Also I agree atheism and agnosticism sometimes overlap and then there are different view inside these beliefs.
And I don't misunderstand your position , your own, because as far as I know you don't speak for the whole world.
To be clear, there is one and only one definition of an atheist and that is one who finds no evidence to support the existence of a deity. An atheist CAN go one (illogical) step further and insist that there cannot possible be any god, but that isn't required. I don't claim to speak for all atheists, but as i'm familiar with quite a large number of them (and none of them illogical), I would say my definition fits. You don't tend to become an atheist by exchanging one illogical assumption for another. You become an atheist when you simple cannot stand being illogical any longer.
I would call myself agnostic, but I cannot make the claim that we will never have the capacity to understand the universe in a more complete manner and prove or rule out the existence of a deity. I don't know what we will know in the future, thus I am an atheist. I simply maintain that I have no logical reason to assert that a god exists or not and neither does anyone else.
I'll just key in on one point:
"You're woefully ignorant of science and evolution if you're not simple being dishonest. You have absolutely no evidence for your God."
I did not attempt to present any evidence for God in that post. The point being made is that leaps of faith must be made to say that life had its origin the big bang theory. In my opinion, there are to many "plot holes" that need to be filled in order for evolution as the starting point of everything to be fact.
I believe I was created. You believe we evolved from a rock.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“One thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse”
--Jack Handy
The overarching point I'm making is that there are dozens (hundreds?) of species that have a divided hoof, scattered through 6 continents. There are dozens (hundreds?) of animals that chew the cud, again scattered through 6 continents. Of these hundreds of species, there are only 3 animals (camel, hyrax, rabbit) that chew cud but don't have a split hoof. There is only 1 family of animals in the world that has a split hoof, but doesn't chew cud.
I think the fact that somebody from over 3 thousand years ago knew that is pretty incredible. And it seems logical to me that you could not travel enough on your donkey at that point in history to compile that list.
I'm no biologist and too lazy to find a 4th that has not a split hoof and chew cud. Still it's not like camel, hyrax, rabbit where from distant lands. All this proves to me is that with the wide variety of species since they have so much in common (still there are multiple species of rabits for exemple) evolution really did its work.
Still that's interesting to know so far unless someone proves me otherwise and find species not included in your list.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Also I agree atheism and agnosticism sometimes overlap and then there are different view inside these beliefs.
And I don't misunderstand your position , your own, because as far as I know you don't speak for the whole world.
To be clear, there is one and only one definition of an atheist and that is one who finds no evidence to support the existence of a deity. An atheist CAN go one (illogical) step further and insist that there cannot possible be any god, but that isn't required. I don't claim to speak for all atheists, but as i'm familiar with quite a large number of them (and none of them illogical), I would say my definition fits. You don't tend to become an atheist by exchanging one illogical assumption for another. You become an atheist when you simple cannot stand being illogical any longer.
I would call myself agnostic, but I cannot make the claim that we will never have the capacity to understand the universe in a more complete manner and prove or rule out the existence of a deity. I don't know what we will know in the future, thus I am an atheist. I simply maintain that I have no logical reason to assert that a god exists or not and neither does anyone else.
You sound more like agnostic to me than a true atheist
Types of agnosticism
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:
Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[17]
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[17]
Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[18]
Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.[19] A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."
You fit in the agnostic atheist definition to make it fair
"Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.
The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation."
This is from an interesting website halos.com
Scientifically, we can never prove anything. All scientists can do is fail to disprove their theories. Here is a simple disproof that has been around for a number of years and ignored for that same number of years due to the fact that this would be impossible in a big bang type creation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“One thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse”
--Jack Handy
I believe I was created. You believe we evolved from a rock.
An extremely hot rock!
All stupidity aside, we can assert in an evident fashion the processes that caused organic life to evolve out of the universe. Nobody can evidently assert organic life was simply created.
Scientifically, we can never prove anything. All scientists can do is fail to disprove their theories.
God is a theory that we fail to disprove.
Scientifically we've come a long way in the last few centuries. I suppose that was all because we never really proved anything? I hope your creationist website realizes it's a retrograde influence on society for the good of nobody but charlatans and mystics gouging the pockets of the ignorant.
What has your baseless assumption of god done for humanity lately? Aside from the deaths of millions of non-believers, spreading aids in africa, and continuing to keep the scientific debate in many countries stifled by ignorance?
Well as some might have seen, I'm purely agnostic.
I'm also a very tolerant person and in that way my only grudge against religions is their disrepects for other beliefs (that is also why I do not like some atheists that direspect religions). For me fighting the hatred both ways is what really matters not trying to prove something that cannot be proved.
My only true belief, which concern only my own spirit, is that I don't believe in the books (especially I can't see how I'm supposed to believe one more than the others) and the speech of men (all form of priests). This only applies to me though and I see how religion can be good to someone as a form of rules or answers.
By the way, I'm not making generalisation there, I know there are good people both sides that are tolerant. It's the others that worries me and have been the bane of humanity.
This is an excellent point. The big bang theory is absolutely unprovable. In fact, all scientific theories are unprovable, but the big bang does suffer from this a bit more than most.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“One thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse”
--Jack Handy
I'm also a very tolerant person and in that way my only grudge against religions is their disrepects for other beliefs (that is also why I do not like some atheists that direspect religions). For me fighting the hatred both ways is what really matters not trying to prove something that cannot be proved.
Respect for other's beliefs thought, is just as important as respect for the facts and rational empirical discoveries of science. Fighting hatred of religions for one another is noble, but I think the primary concern is religious institutions fighting against scientific progress (showcased here by the creationism propaganda we've now seen in multipul posts) and the betterment of mankind.
By the way, I'm not making generalisation there, I know there are good people both sides that are tolerant. It's the others that worries me and have been a the bane of humanity.
It is pretty difficut for someone to be tolerant of a retrograde influence on society. I find your candor respectable, but if you don't see the danger in tolerating a creationist agenda you're too apathetic, in my opinion.
How about answering the important question, before we devolve into the existentialist garbage?
Science is offering evidential, observational, testable, methods of finding out how the universe works. It can be scrutinized, altered, or maintained as new knowledge comes into focus over time. Your god theory is not evidential, it proves nothing, it explains nothing, and for you to suggest that science is in any way inferior, is patently halarious.
Did you mean to quote me for something I didn't say? I'm assuming that that was intended to be a response to something I said. Please clarify if I'm missing something there. Thanks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“One thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse”
--Jack Handy
Did you mean to quote me for something I didn't say? I'm assuming that that was intended to be a response to something I said. Please clarify if I'm missing something there. Thanks.
Sorry, I'm not following. What question are you presenting to me to answer? Are you referring to 'prove to me your god exists,' or did you state a question that I missed?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“One thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse”
--Jack Handy
Sorry, I'm not following. What question are you presenting to me to answer? Are you referring to 'prove to me your god exists,' or did you state a question that I missed?
Considering science, evidence, empirical observation, and reason have given us the sum total of our knowledge. What makes your god theory (which gives us nothing but a baseless assertion) more useful?
I'm simply asking you why you think taking the word of the bible at face value is more appropriate than reliance on the epirical evidence that we rely on for EVERYTHING else in our lives?
Actually, I rely on the bible for everything I do in my life. I'm not referring to old Jewish law that talks about how many times you have to wash if you are in somebodies house who soils themselves. I'm referring to the part of the bible that guides my beliefs and convictions.
I choose to believe in the Bible because
1) It is what I was raised to do.
2) I have read the doctrinal texts of other religions and found that my morals don't agree with what they state.
3) I do not like thinking of myself as just an animal who happens to be slightly more complex than chimps (this is untrue, genetically. In fact, the pinnacle of genetic evolution is the white fern with, I believe, 126 chromosomes).
4) My life works toward an end goal. For somebody who simply chooses to believe in evolution, your only purpose in life is to have sex. If you have ever had sex and worn a condom, you have just completed your single purpose for living.
5) I have found too much evidence contradictory to a world 4.5 billion years old and a universe 20 billion years old.
I could probably come up with more if I took the time, but I've been looking for packet loss for 11 hours and I'm ready to go home. Working on Saturday sucks...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“One thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse”
--Jack Handy
Creationism as precisely described in the Genesis shouldn't be taught as facts, it should also be taught (if it is) in a theology/history class along the way Muslims, Indians, Boudhists etc see the creation of the world (limit to major religion or it is one hell of a bloated course). That's how religion was taught to me, well I don't know much about hindouism but at least Islam and Christianity were treated on equal grounds.
Agreed, teaching them in the context of literature is good. They are obviously literary traditions and would be no less useful than teaching about shakespear in an English Lit class. My problem is, on the whole religion is and has been making a concerted effort in recent years to erode science at it's base and to bring those creation myths into science classrooms (under the guise of new titles like "Intelligent Design," which is creationism re-labeled).
When you say "It is pretty difficult for someone to be tolerant of a retrograde influence on society" I agree, especially because I agree on the "retrograde influence". For me religion is a matter of one's own spirit therefore it should have no impact on society and like I precised earlier Evidences are what should be considered facts. What I'm tolerant upon is the matter of the unknown, like the existence of god or something less general: I respect someone choice to pray at dawn.
BUT and this is important, my issue is when these are imposed, especially on children. I consider a child too young to make his own choice about the matters of spirit.
I agree and I trust you know, as well as I do, that religions by-in-large do not give children the chance to make their own decisions and do not respect science or the worldviews of anyone outside their own denomination.
Also I'm not american, this creationism vs evolutionism is no debate where I come from so that is why i oversaw this issue in what I wrote. In the end this is also why I participate in this thread, it makes me think about my own position on the subject.
I guess you'll have to take my word for it (or look for the international news about it). It is a growing problem here and in the UK too, as I understand it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You clearly don't understand evolution and it has been repeatedly scrutinized and verified for decades. It requires no faith at all.
You should do a lot more research into the subject. All of those subsets of evolution are veifiable and evidential assertions that are subject to review. If they were articles of faith, they would not be scientific theories.
You're woefully ignorant of science and evolution if you're not simple being dishonest. You have absolutely no evidence for your God. Science has provided ample evidence and proven many times over the validity of current evolutionary theories and processes. The finer points of some subsets of evolutionary theories are argued over to this day, but these are arguments of detail and process, not arguments over the validity of the concept.
There is not a single logical controversy over the theory of evolution at either scale. You're simply wrong.
I'll have to ask you, again, to go study genetics and evolutionary biology if that piques your curiosity. The explanations for these things, in a rational manner, can be found within textbooks and require you to make no irrational leaps of faith. The fact that someone wrote about cud-chewing animals in a society largely driven by animal husbandry is not at all incredible.
To be clear, there is one and only one definition of an atheist and that is one who finds no evidence to support the existence of a deity. An atheist CAN go one (illogical) step further and insist that there cannot possible be any god, but that isn't required. I don't claim to speak for all atheists, but as i'm familiar with quite a large number of them (and none of them illogical), I would say my definition fits. You don't tend to become an atheist by exchanging one illogical assumption for another. You become an atheist when you simple cannot stand being illogical any longer.
I would call myself agnostic, but I cannot make the claim that we will never have the capacity to understand the universe in a more complete manner and prove or rule out the existence of a deity. I don't know what we will know in the future, thus I am an atheist. I simply maintain that I have no logical reason to assert that a god exists or not and neither does anyone else.
"You're woefully ignorant of science and evolution if you're not simple being dishonest. You have absolutely no evidence for your God."
I did not attempt to present any evidence for God in that post. The point being made is that leaps of faith must be made to say that life had its origin the big bang theory. In my opinion, there are to many "plot holes" that need to be filled in order for evolution as the starting point of everything to be fact.
I believe I was created. You believe we evolved from a rock.
--Jack Handy
I'm no biologist and too lazy to find a 4th that has not a split hoof and chew cud. Still it's not like camel, hyrax, rabbit where from distant lands. All this proves to me is that with the wide variety of species since they have so much in common (still there are multiple species of rabits for exemple) evolution really did its work.
Still that's interesting to know so far unless someone proves me otherwise and find species not included in your list.
You sound more like agnostic to me than a true atheist
You fit in the agnostic atheist definition to make it fair
The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation."
This is from an interesting website halos.com
Scientifically, we can never prove anything. All scientists can do is fail to disprove their theories. Here is a simple disproof that has been around for a number of years and ignored for that same number of years due to the fact that this would be impossible in a big bang type creation.
--Jack Handy
God is a theory that we fail to disprove.
--Jack Handy
An extremely hot rock!
All stupidity aside, we can assert in an evident fashion the processes that caused organic life to evolve out of the universe. Nobody can evidently assert organic life was simply created.
Scientifically we've come a long way in the last few centuries. I suppose that was all because we never really proved anything? I hope your creationist website realizes it's a retrograde influence on society for the good of nobody but charlatans and mystics gouging the pockets of the ignorant.
What has your baseless assumption of god done for humanity lately? Aside from the deaths of millions of non-believers, spreading aids in africa, and continuing to keep the scientific debate in many countries stifled by ignorance?
I'm also a very tolerant person and in that way my only grudge against religions is their disrepects for other beliefs (that is also why I do not like some atheists that direspect religions). For me fighting the hatred both ways is what really matters not trying to prove something that cannot be proved.
My only true belief, which concern only my own spirit, is that I don't believe in the books (especially I can't see how I'm supposed to believe one more than the others) and the speech of men (all form of priests). This only applies to me though and I see how religion can be good to someone as a form of rules or answers.
By the way, I'm not making generalisation there, I know there are good people both sides that are tolerant. It's the others that worries me and have been the bane of humanity.
drill down a little bit until you get to this statement, "However, few would argue with his point that science cannot prove anything."
http://physics.about.com/b/2011/03/26/scienceproof.htm
Point 1: Unprovable
This is an excellent point. The big bang theory is absolutely unprovable. In fact, all scientific theories are unprovable, but the big bang does suffer from this a bit more than most.
--Jack Handy
Respect for other's beliefs thought, is just as important as respect for the facts and rational empirical discoveries of science. Fighting hatred of religions for one another is noble, but I think the primary concern is religious institutions fighting against scientific progress (showcased here by the creationism propaganda we've now seen in multipul posts) and the betterment of mankind.
It is pretty difficut for someone to be tolerant of a retrograde influence on society. I find your candor respectable, but if you don't see the danger in tolerating a creationist agenda you're too apathetic, in my opinion.
How about answering the important question, before we devolve into the existentialist garbage?
Science is offering evidential, observational, testable, methods of finding out how the universe works. It can be scrutinized, altered, or maintained as new knowledge comes into focus over time. Your god theory is not evidential, it proves nothing, it explains nothing, and for you to suggest that science is in any way inferior, is patently halarious.
--Jack Handy
You are iterating on this point:
With endless streams of tabloid-quality creationist propaganda.
I invite you to adress the question i'm presenting to you rather than continue to spin your wheels in that muck you're raking around.
--Jack Handy
Considering science, evidence, empirical observation, and reason have given us the sum total of our knowledge. What makes your god theory (which gives us nothing but a baseless assertion) more useful?
I'm simply asking you why you think taking the word of the bible at face value is more appropriate than reliance on the epirical evidence that we rely on for EVERYTHING else in our lives?
Noble quest, but have in mind that when religious people looks for saviour, they usually go for the one in the cross.
Depends on where they were born. =)
I choose to believe in the Bible because
1) It is what I was raised to do.
2) I have read the doctrinal texts of other religions and found that my morals don't agree with what they state.
3) I do not like thinking of myself as just an animal who happens to be slightly more complex than chimps (this is untrue, genetically. In fact, the pinnacle of genetic evolution is the white fern with, I believe, 126 chromosomes).
4) My life works toward an end goal. For somebody who simply chooses to believe in evolution, your only purpose in life is to have sex. If you have ever had sex and worn a condom, you have just completed your single purpose for living.
5) I have found too much evidence contradictory to a world 4.5 billion years old and a universe 20 billion years old.
I could probably come up with more if I took the time, but I've been looking for packet loss for 11 hours and I'm ready to go home. Working on Saturday sucks...
--Jack Handy
Agreed, teaching them in the context of literature is good. They are obviously literary traditions and would be no less useful than teaching about shakespear in an English Lit class. My problem is, on the whole religion is and has been making a concerted effort in recent years to erode science at it's base and to bring those creation myths into science classrooms (under the guise of new titles like "Intelligent Design," which is creationism re-labeled).
I agree and I trust you know, as well as I do, that religions by-in-large do not give children the chance to make their own decisions and do not respect science or the worldviews of anyone outside their own denomination.
I guess you'll have to take my word for it (or look for the international news about it). It is a growing problem here and in the UK too, as I understand it.