-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Disco08 said:
I like the idea of discussing the basis of atheists' rejection of faith-based belief systems. But be sure to be clear that atheism is not a belief system per se but the absence of one due to lack of any evidence to support them (by definition).
Disco08 said:
My point is you can't just dismiss something just becasue there is no evidence. I'm not a full on christian btw but I find it interesting how some aetheists are cynical and dismisive of peoples beliefs.
I'd do a hutstar on ya -
Please explain evolution to me because it has just about as much substance as christianity has, when you really think about it.
If aetheists believe in evolution, what did life initially evolve out of? Dirt?
And dirt, rocks etc, how did they come about? What did they evolve from? If you leave a rock in the sun and water it long enough will it grow legs and walk?
The big bang theory. How did that come about?. Where did the forces that created that come from? Who/what created this? Things don't just happen.
And when did things begin to "happen". Was there a beginning? Not earths beginning, but the beginning to everything, every rock, every particle, every atom? How did this come about?
And what was there before then? Nothing? Who/what triggered the beginning of the beginning?
There are just as many questions on both sides of the fence and you can't state one is right over the other just because you have questions that the other side can't answer.
jayfox said:
I think this has been handled well by some of the preceding posts. Something I will point out though is that you seem to have this picture of individual organisms evolving, as opposed to the populations that actually evolve. The individual mutations occur in single organisms, but spread through the populations due to natural selection (whereby there is an advantage to carrying those genes) or through drift (whereby they are neither beneficial nor deleterious and thus spread through the population, or part thereof).
Birds, including chickens are the evolutionary descendants of a branch of dinosaurs known as theropods - you see not all dinosaurs went extinct after all.
jayfox said:
Check out monotremes Jay. An early branchpoint in mammalian evolution and still egg-layers to this day. This early-branching theory is not just supported by the fact that they lay eggs, have fur, nurse their young or other morphological oddities, but also by molecular evidence showing their relationships at the level of DNA sequence (that also happen to agree with this theory).
Harry said:
No, we don't say there is no god. We say that the probability of a god existing is so negligible as to be easily dismissed. Just like you dismiss fairy tale creatures and gods of other societies and civilizations. To paraphrase Dawkins, "atheists just go one god further".
Are you going to argue that Leprechauns, Minotaurs, Apollo and Thor exist? Why not? You have as much evidence for the existence of Yahweh and the divinity of Jesus.
Harry said:
Science believes the simple answer is always the best. Why not just come to the simplest conclusion from the evidence that is available?
Harry said:
The theory of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection which demonstrates (through evidence) that each species developed from a simpler one before it. One of the main principles of the theory is that it is far simpler to explain complexity by a series a small steps than it is to say that the complexity itself was created in one go.
Harry said:
No, chemicals. The same things all life is still made from, only simpler.
Harry said:
Er, no.
Harry said:
Scientists don't yet know what caused the big bang. The theory itself explains what happened during and subsequent to the big bang (again through evidence) not what caused it. Just because you don't know or think you know what causes something doesn't mean that god is the answer though.
Harry said:
Well, every rock, particle and atom etc was created by the big bang, but I don't think that's what you mean.
Again science doesn't pretend to know the answers to these questions. We are but a tiny species on a tiny planet. Why should we expect to understand things as profound as this?
Harry said:
True, but when one or more of the sides make assertions don't you think evidence that is available should back those assertions up? And if it doesn't isn't it fair enough to call those claims *smile*?
evo said:You have your work cut out, Pantera.Harold has some questions.Better let the boss know you need the rest of afternoon off.
Wheres that blasted emoticon we requested.
;D
;D
Harry said:
My take on this post.
I am dismissive of people's faith-based beliefs. Why? Because there is no reason to believe something that there is no evidence for. They can and will still believe these things but they have no rational basis for their beliefs and thus I will not be swayed by their arguments and I can dismiss them for being baseless.
If you want to argue that such beliefs are harmless, as many religious moderates do, I would recommend that you read The End of Faith by Sam Harris. His argument and conclusions are quite interesting in these matters.
Evolution has as much basis as Chrisitanity? I would argue that you know little about evolution and even less about the evidence that supports it. There are literally volumes of documented, verified, peer-reviewed, scientific papers that support the basic theory of evolution from common descent. Christianity has the New Testament, which, considering its history, is of questionable value, in terms of evidence.
Your middle paragraph raises questions on a number of interesting and still mysterious areas, including abiogenesis and the big bang. Science does have some tentative theories describing abiogenesis and even better supported ones for the 'big bang', but the point is that Science accepts that if we don't know, we don't know. There is no need to invoke the God of the Gaps to explain anything. Just continue to conduct research and slowly elucidate these fascinating and complex areas. Don't you find it curious that the supernatural is not invoked for areas that science has explained, ie. our place in the cosmos, the basis of disease etc etc.? Why not wait and see what the evidence shows? The idea that 'god did it' provides no evidence, just a 'you can't explain it , so it must be god' answer. That is neither testable nor adds anything to the argument.
Check out Jay's post towards the end of the Christianity thread if you want to see how the Christian mind works. A decision needs to be made, if things turn out well, praise the lord, in not, then it is a test or a lesson. That is the self-reinforcing nature of religion.
So to answer your post. Yes, we can say that our side of the argument is more likely to be correct, because we have robust, verifiable evidence to support it, as opposed to blind assertion. To say otherwise would be to believe that two individuals have equally valid arguments when one says "the sky is blue" while the other states "the sky is fluorescent pink" in the middle of perfect summer's day.
