Atheism

[Harry]

My point is you can't just dismiss something just becasue there is no evidence.

Science believes the simple answer is always the best. Why not just come to the simplest conclusion from the evidence that is available?

Please explain evolution to me because it has just about as much substance as christianity has, when you really think about it.

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.

If aetheists believe in evolution, what did life initially evolve out of? Dirt?

No, chemicals. The same things all life is still made from, only simpler.

If you leave a rock in the sun and water it long enough will it grow legs and walk?

Er, no.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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*?

Good effort. Scientists and aethiests have got nice theories about chemistry and biology and all, which is fine. But there is no proof that God didn't create life with this in mind, allowing life to evolve to what it is today. I know this contradicts the bible but I'll pose you the same question as Pathena - How did things become to be? Did they appear from thin air? Christians have an explanation to this question, aethiests and scientists don't. There is then the other question regarding how was God created in which there also is no explanation, and again we're going around in circles.

 

[poppa x]

Atheism is not a belief system. Atheists don't have to prove God exists or doesn't exist because frankly we couldn't give a rats clacker. We simply don't buy into the God and religion arguments. We can therefore get on with our lives without having to worry about God's wrath. We have nothing to prove or disprove.

I buried my uncle yesterday. On his headstone it says "He scorned all religions and their false gods as being unworthy of mankind." Smart man my uncle.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Good effort. Scientists and aethiests have got nice theories about chemistry and biology and all, which is fine. But there is no proof that God didn't create life with this in mind, allowing life to evolve to what it is today. I know this contradicts the bible but I'll pose you the same question as Pathena - How did things become to be? Did they appear from thin air? Christians have an explanation to this question, aethiests and scientists don't. There is then the other question regarding how was God created in which there also is no explanation, and again we're going around in circles.

Why start with the assumption of God? There is no evidence that pink elephants didn't create life with the basic laws of the universe in mind. That does not make that a valid or sane premise.

Christians used to have answers to where the Earth was located in the universe, what evil spirits or vengeful god caused various ailments etc. etc. etc.--> how did that turn out?

The point being that because Science demands evidence, we can't just make stuff up to explain the world around us. Having said that scientists are probing these questions and will start to unravel the answers to some of your questions. The Christian (or other religious/mythical) explanation to creation adds nothing to our knowledge and in many cases directly contradict the scientific findings and are thus clearly flawed.

Questions of ultimate causation are interesting (and science even has hypotheses in this area), but I will leave such things to the physicists and philosophers to ponder.

 

[Disco08]

I'll pose you the same question as Pathena - How did things become to be?

As Pantera said, some things we just don't know.

A question for you Harry. Do you think humans are any more special than the other species of the universe?

Christians have an explanation to this question, aethiests and scientists don't.

That's true, but to believe the christian answer you have to believe in some pretty fanciful stuff and some other stuff which to many people doesn't make any sense at all for a number of reasons. Unless of course you only want to take selected truths from your religion but then how do you decide which bits are true and which aren't?

 

[Harry]

If you're talking about a creator/designer then most atheists obviously don't believe one exists. None of the evidence points to a creator so why hypothesize one?

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.

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.

Take off your science hat and answer my previous question.

You know what, you can't, so for that reason alone aethiests theories are just as dismissible as Christians. This question has lingered in the mind of man for as long as mankind, and it will never be answered. And if science can't explain this (as it can't) then wouldn't you too dismiss the theory of evolution for also being baseless ?

 

[evo]

Christians have an explanation to this question,

gimme a break Harry.

Thats like saying children have an explainationr to where Easter eggs come from.

 

[Disco08]

And if science can't explain this (as it can't) then wouldn't you too dismiss the theory of evolution for also being baseless ?

Despite all the evidence that backs up evolution?

Why not try and learn the truth about ourselves and our surroundings using the evidence at hand and accept that some things are beyond our scope of knowledge right now?

Just because you can't answer one question doesn't mean you know nothing at all.

 

[poppa x]

You know what, you can't, so for that reason alone aethiests theories are just as dismissible as Christians. This question has lingered in the mind of man for as long as mankind, and it will never be answered. And if science can't explain this (as it can't) then wouldn't you too dismiss the theory of evolution for also being baseless ?

As I said above - atheists don't have beliefs or theories. Religionists just can't come to grips with people who don't believe or care.

 

[Harry]

Good effort. Scientists and aethiests have got nice theories about chemistry and biology and all, which is fine. But there is no proof that God didn't create life with this in mind, allowing life to evolve to what it is today. I know this contradicts the bible but I'll pose you the same question as Pathena - How did things become to be? Did they appear from thin air? Christians have an explanation to this question, aethiests and scientists don't. There is then the other question regarding how was God created in which there also is no explanation, and again we're going around in circles.

Why start with the assumption of God? There is no evidence that pink elephants didn't create life with the basic laws of the universe in mind. That does not make that a valid or sane premise.

I didn't. I'm playing devils advocate and throwing some questions to the atheists.

Christians used to have answers to where the Earth was located in the universe, what evil spirits or vengeful god caused various ailments etc. etc. etc.--> how did that turn out?

That's got nothing to do with my arguments.

The point being that because Science demands evidence, we can't just make stuff up to explain the world around us. Having said that scientists are probing these questions and will start to unravel the answers to some of your questions. The Christian (or other religious/mythical) explanation to creation adds nothing to our knowledge and in many cases directly contradict the scientific findings and are thus clearly flawed.

The main argument atheists use against christians is that they can't prove it. My comments are saying the same about athiests/science/theory of evolution.

Questions of ultimate causation are interesting (and science even has hypotheses in this area), but I will leave such things to the physicists and philosophers to ponder.

I wish them luck. It's an impossible task.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Take off your science hat and answer my previous question.

You know what, you can't, so for that reason alone aethiests theories are just as dismissible as Christians. This question has lingered in the mind of man for as long as mankind, and it will never be answered. And if science can't explain this (as it can't) then wouldn't you too dismiss the theory of evolution for also being baseless ?

I have found science to be the only effective way of elucidating the world around us. Look at the world we live in today compare to even 100 years ago. You can thank the use of the scientific method and its application of technology for that. Why should I lower my standard of evidence, or 'take off my science hat' as you so colourfully put it? I am not afraid to say I don't know the answers to certain questions and I certainly don't need to make up fanciful ideas or subscribe to 1st century mythology to explain anything either.

I find it interesting that you say that these questions will never be answered, nor can science address them. Science IS addressing them, so I guess the jury is out on whether we will live to see the fruits of these endeavours.

Your final sentence does not logically follow from the previous sentence, it is a non-sequitur. Evolutionary theories stand well enough on their own and are not predicated on the theories of abiogenisis, the big bang or ultimate causation.

 

[Harry]

When I state "theory of evolution" I am using it in the context of creation. ie creation just eveolved.

Yes I know life forms have evolved and that this has been proven, but how did creation evolve?

 

[philipwalsh]

If you are an atheist you have to beleive that there is life elsewhere. We are merely a dust particle floating in a massive room. If you keep going in the same direction you should hit a wall. Where is the wall? That's right there is no wall. The Universe is infinite, it never ends. It keeps going on and on and on and on. And on. Probability keeps increasing the more you go on and on. Infinite would mean increasing to a point where you get 100%. Atheists can't be definite about there being no God as it can't be proven, then say there is a probability of life elsewhere. A probability of there being no God perhaps? But this wouldn't make one an atheist now would it?

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.

Then explain creation to me. How did things become to be?

Through the process of evolution. To me, the creativity and intelligence of life is being created through the process of evolution. Taking the story of creation literally is as foolhardy as thinking that evolution is a pure accident and that beauty in life has no meaning. It is not an either/or debate. Science and religion just look at life from different perspectives.

 

[Harry]

Christians have an explanation to this question,

gimme a break Harry.

Thats like saying children have an explainationr to where Easter eggs come from.

It's a theory. Some might dismiss it, and laugh at it, but it's still a theory.

What is the correct "theory" then.

 

[Disco08]

When I state "theory of evolution" I am using it in the context of creation. ie creation just eveolved.

The theory of evolution relates to species though Harry. Darwin's book was called 'The Evolution Of Species' after all.

Do you think it's better to admit you don't know the answer to something or to make up an answer and assert it as the answer with absolute conviction?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I didn't. I'm playing devils advocate and throwing some questions to the atheists.

Good effort. Scientists and aethiests have got nice theories about chemistry and biology and all, which is fine. But there is no proof that God didn't create life with this in mind, allowing life to evolve to what it is today.....

Even advocating for the devil, your argument was still that there is a lack of evidence that God didn't create life. I for one would prefer to see positive evidence for his existence.

Christians used to have answers to where the Earth was located in the universe, what evil spirits or vengeful god caused various ailments etc. etc. etc.--> how did that turn out?

That's got nothing to do with my arguments.

It is my response to you arguing for the validity of the 'God of the Gaps' vs the 'wait and see what the evidence supports' approach and is directly relevant to the argument.

The main argument atheists use against christians is that they can't prove it. My comments are saying the same about athiests/science/theory of evolution.

We can't prove anything absolutely, however we can establish the validity to theories relative to the amount of real evidence supporting them. This is where scientific theories and faith part company....one is the belief due to presence of evidence, the other is belief in the absence of evidence, and sometimes contrary to the evidence.

I wish them luck. It's an impossible task.

Me too. A daunting task, to be sure, but arguments from personal incredulity won't change the fact that they are addressing it.

 

[Harry]

And if science can't explain this (as it can't) then wouldn't you too dismiss the theory of evolution for also being baseless ?

Despite all the evidence that backs up evolution?

Why not try and learn the truth about ourselves and our surroundings using the evidence at hand and accept that some things are beyond our scope of knowledge right now?

Right now? We will never know. What plausible explanation can someone down the track come up with? There is none and our kind will never know.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

And if science can't explain this (as it can't) then wouldn't you too dismiss the theory of evolution for also being baseless ?

Despite all the evidence that backs up evolution?

Why not try and learn the truth about ourselves and our surroundings using the evidence at hand and accept that some things are beyond our scope of knowledge right now?

Right now? We will never know. What plausible explanation can someone down the track come up with? There is none and our kind will never know.

Where did I put that "argument from personal incredulity" emoticon???

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

When I state "theory of evolution" I am using it in the context of creation. ie creation just eveolved.

Yes I know life forms have evolved and that this has been proven, but how did creation evolve?

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. The theories of evolution work on life and don't inform us (directly) on the origin of that life.

 

[Disco08]

Right now? We will never know. What plausible explanation can someone down the track come up with? There is none and our kind will never know.

Come on. Look at the leaps made in the last few decades. You can't predict what will and won't be possible in the future.

 

[Harry]

When I state "theory of evolution" I am using it in the context of creation. ie creation just eveolved.

The theory of evolution relates to species though Harry. Darwin's book was called 'The Evolution Of Species' after all.

Do you think it's better to admit you don't know the answer to something or to make up an answer and assert it as the answer with absolute conviction?

I'm talking about creation. Should have made myself clearer.

Agree with your second point. I don't know the answer and don't assert that I do. Just throwing some questions at those who are quick to dismiss others.