Atheism

[ED]

And there lies the whole conflict of our existence as humans; I for one obey my natural instincts I inherited from this nature. There is a harmony within me between my conciseness and sub- conciseness. How do you know animals don’t have souls? How do you figure this out if I may ask? I suspect they even have gods, and we are there gods, when my kid was just a baby who do you think he worshiped (and still does) me. So many answered questions and so many explanations, yet there is only one very simple explanation.

[Anoushik]

When Gevo posted the two arguments (April 2) - first, an atheist's, and the second, a conservative Christian's - I wanted to write about how obvious it was to see who was being all hateful and insulting and who was just trying to make others understand his views. I didn't write at that time because I thought that it wouldn't be fair to make a general statement about Christians who dislike atheists with that one example. But I have to say I'm so saddened to see that the "religious" forumers here have the same approach to atheists as did that supposed "Christian". You want atheists to believe in God, to have faith, to believe exactly like you do, yet instead of making arguments you resolve to insulting the “non-believers”.

 

I learned a long time ago that people who claim to be Christians and believe in God are the most hateful people in this world. Every person who claimed to be religious proved to be very intolerant, ignorant, and seriously lacking respect towards people with different views.

 

Well, if you think about it, religion was “created” exactly for the kind of people stated above, for through religion they could somehow be controlled. Through the fear of God they could somehow act within the morals of the time. Nothing has changed.

[Sasun]

And there lies the whole conflict of our existence as humans; I for one obey my natural instincts I inherited from this nature. There is a harmony within me between my conciseness and sub- conciseness. How do you know animals don’t have souls? How do you figure this out if I may ask? I suspect they even have gods, and we are there gods, when my kid was just a baby who do you think he worshiped (and still does) me. So many answered questions and so many explanations, yet there is only one very simple explanation.

Edward, I believe animals do have souls, and some degree of consciousness. But they lack much of the consciousness that humans have. Moreover, they cannot increase their consciousness like we humans do, they are bound what the nature has granted them.

[ED]

Hence we are nothing more but advanced/evolved intelligent animals

[Sip]

I learned a long time ago that people who claim to be Christians and believe in God are the most hateful people in this world. Every person who claimed to be religious proved to be very intolerant, ignorant, and seriously lacking respect towards people with different views.

I would tend to agree with you about the "hard core" ignorant Christians ... but the true ones, the "turn your cheek" Christians that are usually very hard to find are pretty kick ass people (I know at least two that have dedicated their lives to helping others and don't really ask for much in return). I think the fundamentals of Christianity as a way of life are VERY sound. It's just hard to find those that live by the thoughts of "God" rather than try to stick to the the words of some gospel or some shmo interpreting those gospels!

[Sasun]

Hence we are nothing more but advanced/evolved intelligent animals

Nope We are more than that. Animals cannot realize that they have souls, we not only can realize that we have souls but that we are not the body but the soul. Well, we don't realize but we CAN if we want to.

[Sasun]

I think the fundamentals of Christianity as a way of life are VERY sound. It's just hard to find those that live by the thoughts of "God" rather than try to stick to the the words of some gospel or some shmo interpreting those gospels!

But Sip, the Christian beliefs come primarily from the gospels. It could be learning directly or learning trough an interpreter. What is wrong with that?

[Sip]

I will just quote this small part of the script from Monty Python's search for the holy grail as I think it trully captures what I think about the literal reading of some gospels (though I will admit never to have read the bible myself )

 

ARTHUR:  How does it, uh... how does it work?

 

???: I know not, my liege.

 

???: Consult the Book of Armaments!

 

MAYNARD: Armaments, Chapter Two, Verses Nine to Twenty-One.

 

BROTHER: "And Saint Atila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'Oh, Lord, bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thy enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large --"

 

MAYNARD: Skip a bit, Brother.

 

BROTHER: "And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.'"

 

MAYNARD: Amen.

 

ALL: Amen.

 

ARTHUR: Right! One... two... five!

 

???: Three, sir!

 

ARTHUR: Three!

 

Well, ok I was just looking for an excuse to post this

[ED]

Ok Sasun, this is just for the sake of a argument I agree with you, and I know where you stand in this issue, my argument here is,………… since people “found” that soul thru so many variations of fait, what good or benefit man kind has seen over the time? Well, all evidence to a contrary. Just turn on the news. And in what you describe about animals I see no distinction between many (religious fanatics) and the cliché “animals”

[Sasun]

Edo, fanatics are not religious people in the pure sense because they are practicing against what their religion preaches. All religions promote the ideal of universal peace in some form or another.

[ED]

And some day maybe they’ll actually implement it.

 

Happy easter everyone.

[Sasun]

Well, Sip, aside from the fun part, that's how a lot of atheists will criticize and reject the gospels and all religious scriptures without being familiar with them

 

Note: I am not saying that atheists should read religious scriptures.

 

Happy Easter everyone

[THOTH]

I will just quote this small part of the script from Monty Python's search for the holy grail as I think it trully captures what I think about the literal reading of some gospels (though I will admit never to have read the bible myself )

 

 

 

Well, ok I was just looking for an excuse to post this

Thank you Seaphan - brings back many memories...I used to be able to quot efrom that entiure movie verbatum (including of course that passage) ..and when pressed I imagine I still could...I'm not old BTW...LOL...I'm 37...good enough....etc

 

seriosly though...I fond it quite amusing those who are pre-supposing how and what and why a non-believer feels like they do etc...all I will say is that I do not need the crutch...if you do...or if indeed you have had soem revelation..thjat is beyond me...OK..well..yeah OK...I'll give you that...but do not suppose that you understand what I amy or may not believe and how moral I may or may not be...and if you presume to attempt to given an inadequate and unsubstantiated and untrue explanation don't be suprised if I jump on your case...otherwise show some respecr...eh...because in not doing so you are showing your true colors..and we are not impressed...

[ExtraHye]

Clean up done, please stay on topic.

[Anonymouse]

The scientific method is the best possible method out there. You got beef with that? Bring an alternative, or bring an alternative to bringing an alternative, whatever your problem is. It's funny - nobody here (that I have noticed) has been trying to convince you of anything, including evolution (whereas you are stuck in variation and adaptation, entirely different from although the latter not altogether mutually exclusive with evolution, from my understanding), but the fallacy of your approach. If, within the generally accepted norms of the approach, you were to bring in facts that discredit evolution (and why would it be you anyway, we'd have had some familiarity with this earth-shattering revelation), then you'd have a chance of proper debate.

 

If you knew anything about the scientific method, then you would know that all our observations about the world around us are based on the physical senses, and the present. Evolutionary theory is not a scientific hyopthesis since it is not testable or repeatable. You start on about fallacies yet you cannot see the biggest fallacy in believing something simply because it is the best explanation, whereas science is supposed to be about knowledge based on our physical senses since that is how we hypothesize about the world around us. Evolutionary theory attempts to explain how life began and developed, not the world around us, since this is secondary. In so doing, it is no different than a metaphysical assumption - a religion, with a model, a structure, and pattern of development, no different than Marx or someone coming up with a model for history ( "all history is a class struggle", historical materialism or dialectical materialism). Now you tell me to "bring in facts" that discredit evolution for then to have a "chance of a proper debate" ignores the fact that the onus is upon those who assert the "fact", not I. It is not my job to bring evidence to support evolution. All I have done is point out the lackof evidence. If you have evidence to show how one a single celled organism morphs into a complex one, I'm all ears, or if you can offer evidence of one species jumping to another, I'm all ears.

 

The problem arises from the semantic of "evolution" that is used as a designation for processes that may have little or nothing in common. A shift in the number of dark and light moths in a population is called "evolution", and so is the alleged jump from single to complex organisms. There is nothing in nature that cannot not be evolution. This sort of reasoning seems to give "evolution" an aura of infallibility. The ramifications of these semantics is that "evolution" is this giant large single looping process and most scientists will exploit this whether intentionally or not, as a substitute for scientific evidence. So in reality it is the vocabulary inherent in evolution-speak that covers everything with the blanket term 'evolution' and limits our comprehension.

 

Until then, you sound like someone claiming the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it and that people can't have gone to the moon, in exaggeration.

 

This is the common defense mechanism of the profane and the atheistic, when they have nothing to contribute or contend with intellectually, must resort to Thoth-like tactics.

 

And, yes, you do need credentials (background, research, findings, etc.) to disagree with a theory, and even then the process takes time within the scientific community. When you don't need credentials is when you are, as is every layman's right, skeptical or suspicious of a theory, which you are not. For you to think you can just disagree with everything you read a contrarian view about, you have to be pretty arrogant (and it does show, despite you and Axel's characterisation of me as such, what a laugh, I've been getting plenty on this forum lately).

 

This begs the question, for why would anyone ( including myself ) engage in this discussion, if I was not versed in what I am discussing? I don't have credentials in the professional sense, but I have enough background to engage in a discussion regarding the theory of evolution. This is only common sense, but why someone would choose to dwell on this for the purposes of having something to post about other than the actual discussion, begs the question itself. Only those that don't have the wits to discuss will pretend to have credentials or deflect by the issue of such, and will hover around on this inconsequential stuff, and ignore the actual debate. As far as my characterization of you, I have my reasons based on your very crude and dry behavior of chastising those that don't agree with you.

[DominO123]

It is amusing to watch how anon always sing the same song of « if you knew anything about … » and by chance the person to whom he answer is always someone studying in the field in question. This time anon is answering to a lady that is completing a master degree in a scientific discipline. Anon is always more knowledgeable than those in the field. ALWAYS. No need I think to develop here regarding what science is supposed to do, because if he knew so much of this “stuff” even if his higher intellect will be wasted in studying a scientific discipline at least he would have passed some equivalence exams.

 

Anon could claim as much as he want that it does not take any credential, I will take Socrates words when he says to ignore those that don’t know the subject they try to treat about. If I am ill, I will consult a doctor for sure, and not an anon. If I need a surgery I will place my life under the surgeon hands and not an anon. This is all about credentials. If I want to read about quantum mechanic I will read a physicist. Everyone can self proclaim himself specialist on every fields, more particularly when those “everyone” are hidden behind google.

 

Evolution is a conclusion based on science, no matter how hard anon tries. I never claimed science to be perfect, it can’t be perfect… but there is things in science that are even less supported than evolution, for instance even if there is a major contradiction between the micro-world theories and laws and macro-world(example: relativity vs Quantum mechanic), still when measuring the probability of the presence of an electron on a “x” distance of the centre, I will be using Quantum mechanic. Evolution is supported by observations and is NOT contradicted by any observations… even in our DNA we find load of trash coming from our monocellular ancestries, those are hard evidences. (I hear anon singing now: “of you knew anything about genetic.”)

 

Now in order to claim evolution is not the best theory we know of to explain what we observe, anon has yet to propose something that could replace it that could be supported by evidences and answer more questions than what evolution does answer.

 

Mind here that when we add to evolution the multiple universe theory, both together answer most of the problems… and for anon to reject those hypotheses he has yet to propose something… he claims his goal was never to propose, yet he did that here and elsewhere with his alien theories which are even less supported than evolution. Science always tries to answer questions, propose new theories that will replace old ones. So what does anon propose?

 

Mind here II, that he can not hide himself by bringing his so popular: “This is the common defense mechanism of the profane and the atheistic,…” as I am only the profane in the world that could be found between his two ears, and neither I am an atheist.

Edited April 11, 2004 by Fadix

[Anonymouse]

It is amusing to watch how anon always sing the same song of « if you knew anything about … » and by chance the person to whom he answer is always someone studying in the field in question. This time anon is answering to a lady that is completing a master degree in a scientific discipline. Anon is always more knowledgeable than those in the field. ALWAYS. No need I think to develop here regarding what science is supposed to do, because if he knew so much of this “stuff” even if his higher intellect will be wasted in studying a scientific discipline at least he would have passed some equivalence exams.

 

I rather do love the fact that anyone in this forum who cannot contend intellectually, whether it be you, Thoth, or Stormtrooper, must resort to desperate measures. And what is a thread party without a response from FedEx? Note that I never said I am a master of this field, I only claimed I have enough background to engage in the discussion. I challenge you, to produce where I stated that I am a master in this field. Unless this is for smear tactic purposes, I don't see why you should lie.

 

Anon could claim as much as he want that it does not take any credential, I will take Socrates words when he says to ignore those that don’t know the subject they try to treat about. If I am ill, I will consult a doctor for sure, and not an anon. If I need a surgery I will place my life under the surgeon hands and not an anon. This is all about credentials. If I want to read about quantum mechanic I will read a physicist. Everyone can self proclaim himself specialist on every fields, more particularly when those “everyone” are hidden behind google.

 

You know, instead of making excuses and smearing me, why not actually try to show me how wrong I am by actually discussing the issue and showing all the evidence of evolution? Once again, FedEx fails to deliver the actual substance, but ends up delivering more insults. This behavior is becoming quite a pattern among those who can't stand to expose their ideas to scrutiny. I know it sucks to have some mumbling rat on an internet forum to question ( and in this even shatter ) your dearly held views, since some of your degrees and fields of study depend on this.

 

Evolution is a conclusion based on science, no matter how hard anon tries. I never claimed science to be perfect, it can’t be perfect… but there is things in science that are even less supported than evolution, for instance even if there is a major contradiction between the micro-world theories and laws and macro-world(example: relativity vs Quantum mechanic), still when measuring the probability of the presence of an electron on a “x” distance of the centre, I will be using Quantum mechanic. Evolution is supported by observations and is NOT contradicted by any observations…

 

That is incorrect. Only within species variation is something observed. "Evolution" I already explained is an all-encompassing term, designed to include anything and everything, thereby making it hard to discredit evolution, since where it lacks in scientific evidence, it makes up for in semantic jargon. To state that evolution is "observed" is a exaggeration to the nth degree. All the evidence that scientists have exist in the present. What we observe is in the present, not the past. For scientists to try to state what happened in the past is guess, for they cannot deal directly with the past. Because they cannot deal with the past, they make guesses about the past, and hence "evolution" is a belief system about the past, trying to explain how the present, came to be, by explaining the past - that means how fossils got to be here, how we got to be here, etc. Likewise, no one here and now observed the transition of life from simple to complex, just like no one observed the big bang. It follows that since these things were never observed, they cannot be tested or repeated. I'm left wondering why people say it is a "conclusion" based on "science" when it is compiled based on the antithesis of the rules of science.

 

Now in order to claim evolution is not the best theory we know of to explain what we observe, anon has yet to propose something that could replace it that could be supported by evidences and answer more questions than what evolution does answer.

 

What I claim will be no different than evolution, it's just still a belief since we are imperfect and will never know everything, ergo, never know how we came to be. The point is, anything else that is a belief of how we originated, whether it is aliens, or God, the arrogance of the scientific community decides to call it "fact" after gauging it in clever terminology to give it an aura of science.

 

 

Mind here that when we add to evolution the multiple universe theory, both together answer most of the problems… and for anon to reject those hypotheses he has yet to propose something… he claims his goal was never to propose, yet he did that here and elsewhere with his alien theories which are even less supported than evolution. Science always tries to answer questions, propose new theories that will replace old ones. So what does anon propose?

 

UFOs answer most of our problems too, so does God. How do they differ from evolution? Evolution simply asserts "we evolved". Well, saying 'aliens" or "God" did it, is no different. In each case, according to the rules of science, we lack precisely that which we need to establish certainty, and that is evidence. Everything else, like everything else Domino posts, is exaggeration.

[THOTH]

Anon - such a joke...eh...

[Anonymouse]

"Hi I'm Thoth. I don't make much sense" - Thoth

[THOTH]

Yes rat - the king of incorrent and meaningless posts...

[Maral]

You know guys I try and stay away from these forum temper tantrums and name callings disguised as duscusions etc...you have to see how pathetic you all sound.

You guys are really really really annoying!

You take perfectly good topics and thrash them just to get off on how you can answer a post and make a fool out of someone,when in fact you're just making fools out of yourselves.ENOUGH!

Get your acts together and GROW UP!

Edited April 11, 2004 by Maral

[MosJan]

You know guys I try and stay away from these forum temper tantrums and name callings disguised as duscusions etc...you have to see how pathetic you all sound.

You guys are really really really annoying!

You take perfectly good topics and thrash them just to get off on how you can answer a post and make a fool out of someone,when in fact you're just making fools out of yourselves.ENOUGH!

Get your acts together and GROW UP!

[THOTH]

Well, Sip, aside from the fun part, that's how a lot of atheists will criticize and reject the gospels and all religious scriptures without being familiar with them

 

Note: I am not saying that atheists should read religious scriptures.

 

Happy Easter everyone

Well Sasun...I've read the entire old & new testements several times..probably several before you were even born...in addition to reading versions of many other religious texts (monotheistic & otherwise) - as well as analysis and such - such as pretty much the entire works of Joeseph Cambell and other works such as Frasier's "on Golden Bough" and such..again much of this prior to turning 16...a great many years ago i might add...as well as obseving Shaman and other mystics (levitating/flying & doing other supernatural things) etc etc - so please...don't assume that you alone have done such searching etc...

[hyebruin]

"Hi I'm Thoth. I don't make much sense" - Thoth

this is just too funny and amusing

 

(not laughing at you thoth it's just.....it's funny!!!! )

[Stormig]

It is amusing to watch how anon always sing the same song of « if you knew anything about … » and by chance the person to whom he answer is always someone studying in the field in question. This time anon is answering to a lady that is completing a master degree in a scientific discipline. Anon is always more knowledgeable than those in the field. ALWAYS. No need I think to develop here regarding what science is supposed to do, because if he knew so much of this “stuff” even if his higher intellect will be wasted in studying a scientific discipline at least he would have passed some equivalence exams.

Not only that, but he's also taking a piss-race with a jolly swell guy (or two) who actually has a Ph.D. as well. Not that there's anything wrong with discussing any subject with anyone, but he has just shown how shamelessly he just has to insist on trying to negate everything, anything, coming from people with some command over their thoughts and logic, all the while we are narrow-minded people ("evolutionists") that will cling on to our "dearly held views" at whatever expense, and after all, the anti-thesis of evolution is, you guessed it, God and aliens. The thread has achieved its mission; thank you, Rat, for the not-so-sublime entertainment. It was good up to a point until I realised you must be genuine. If you were born an Azeri, you'd be one shameless genocide denialist and "Albanianist." Then of course you would have an entirely different set of intellectual version of f*gh*gs in awe of you, how sweet, I can just picture it.