Atheism

[tigertime2]

And it takes more faith for me to believe a magic man appeared out of nothing, and created a sub-serviant slave race to worship for all time. Each to their own.

You dont believe, so your augument does not hold up.

 

[Disco08]

Yes, your not kidding.

Did I tell you I once spoke to the former head of the Australian Skeptics society, who had just taken up a position at Camberidge University. He changed his view that God was real and the bible was true.

What was his name tigertime? I'd be interested to read his story.

 

[tigertime2]

Of course it does. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of life.

How much do you know about evolution tigertime?

Look evolution does happen things can evolve over time, but I just turn off when the evolutionist say my ancestors were apes.

What is your view on the beginning of life Disco?

 

[Djevv]

And it takes more faith for me to believe a magic man appeared out of nothing, and created a sub-serviant slave race to worship for all time. Each to their own.

I thought you were a Buddhist? Buddhists believe in reincarnation and an ultimate being called Brahmin - don't they? Ergo you believe both in the 'magic man' and the supernatural.

Don't forget God became a man in my faith. And he made a huge sacrifice to restore our relationship to Him. No doubt if He wished to create robots he could have.

 

[tigertime2]

What was his name tigertime? I'd be interested to read his story.

It was about 10 years ago, I came across his story and contacted him via email at Cambridge and had quite a good talk with him about a number of things. I dont recall his name but will see if I can find it for you.

 

[Tiger74]

You dont believe, so your augument does not hold up.

You don't believe in evolution though, so your argument on that does not hold up.

Saying "I'm right coz" is not proof, its just your personal view, be it right or wrong.

Fact is neither side of this argument can prove its claim 100%.

 

[Tigers of Old]

What I have never understood is if man descended from apes, why did apes stay the same?

Also seems to me that there's very little fossil evidence of this supposed evolution.

 

[Tiger74]

I thought you were a Buddhist? Buddhists believe in reincarnation and an ultimate being called Brahmin - don't they? Ergo you believe both in the 'magic man' and the supernatural.

Don't forget God became a man in my faith. And he made a huge sacrifice to restore our relationship to Him. No doubt if He wished to create robots he could have.

My point is not about one over the other, but arguing "I believe" as proof.  Faith is "faith" because it is belief without proof.  Thats the whole point of having faith.  Likewise evolution is a theory, because it cannot be completely proven as law yet.  This means its comes down to what is likely and unlikely, which is where the debate should be.  This is why I raised the issue of Adamms having us as a part of a giant computer being run by mice.  Its impossible to disprove, but this is not proof.  Just because something cannot be disproved doesn't mean its not extraordinarily unlikely.  This is where we should be talking, what is more likely and less likely, not if you cannot disprove it I must be right.

As for Buddhism, there is no "magic man".  There are significant aspects of it however (such as wheel) that do require faith though.

 

[Tiger74]

What I have never understood is if man descended from apes, why did apes stay the same?

Also seems to me that there's very little fossil evidence of this supposed evolution.

Evo, looks like we have another believer in the crocoduck  :hihi (its actually been a while since we had some Kirk Cameron gold, anything new out there?)

TOO, get ready for the wave of detail from Disco and Panthera, they live for explaining this bit  ;D

 

[Disco08]

Also seems to me that there's very little fossil evidence of this supposed evolution.

Other than the nice neat sorting of fossils from simpler to more complex in the fossil record Tooheys? Every fossil is evidence of evolution mate.

What I have never understood is if man descended from apes, why did apes stay the same?

Because natural selection occurs within small populations of a species, not the entire species.

It was about 10 years ago, I came across his story and contacted him via email at Cambridge and had quite a good talk with him about a number of things. I dont recall his name but will see if I can find it for you.

Was it Anthony Garrett?

 

[AngryAnt]

Did I mention that skeptics have their own spin on the evidence? ;D

If by "spin" you mean we look at the evidence you provide, assess it - including whether or not it is even relevant to the question does God exist, - and usually dismiss it as being unscientific, biased and of poor quality.

By the way, most of examples you give are arguments, not evidence. And as Evo points out they are mostly arguments that have been lost a long time ago - yet Christians persist with them.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

What I have never understood is if man descended from apes, why did apes stay the same?

Also seems to me that there's very little fossil evidence of this supposed evolution.

Cue Panthera.

I hope this post was tongue in cheek...I was expecting this from tigertime, but not TOO.

My short answer to the first is that humans are apes. Our closest extant (living) relative are the chimpanzees and bonobos with whom we shared a common ancestor somewhere in the vicinity of 5 million years ago. So, to be clear, we did not evolve from chimps and bonobos, we share a common ancestor with these species, from which we have all evolved separately for quite some time. The fossil evidence of human evolution is very clear.

As for the fossil record in general, it is amazingly comprehensive when you consider what types of species are most likely to fossilize and under what conditions this occurs. Pointing out gaps in the fossil record is not evidence against evolution - it is expected and predicted by the theories. Rabbits in the pre-Cambrian is evidence against evolution. These have been lacking to date as have other 'out of sequence' fossils.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I am glad you used the word approximately ;D

I am aware of the limitations of our ability to 'know' certain things and the degree of error in our predictions and estimations.

It seems your gut-feeling is a better gauge of this universe. : Let's see it's power of prediction. No?

Only individuals who don't understand what can and can't be known speak in absolutes on such matters.

 

[newyorktiger]

I plan to go here by the year end, so I get a photo with Jesus. Then a little later that day, he'll get pinned at the cross! Great night time entertainment!

http://www.theholylandexperience.com/

It's lucky it's just around the corner from Disneyworld in Florida. FAAAAANtastic

Next summer:

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I see when you quote other sources that make your view strong you are right, but when i quote older text I am shifting the Goal Posts.

We were talking about the Golden Rule which in Christian theology was spoken by Jesus Christ. You then decide to say that the 10 commandments are older than the Greek and Islamic quotes that were provided which highlight the non-unique nature of this moral code.

If you would like to discuss the 10 commandments and the morality found therein, then lets do that. However when you change your argument in mid-debate that is shifting the goal posts.

Please show me where I have done similar when you make such accusations.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Fair comments. At the end of the day the whole Bible is based around revelation knowledge. So although you can't prove it is correct in a quantitative sense, psychologically I would have thought you have to explain it as some sort of mass delusion or real. IMO. There have been a lot of pretty amazing life changes that have come through Christ.

I would say that humans have some tendency to see meaning in the ordinary and have a tendency to religion. This seems more likely than your conclusion that Christianity is right because of all of the adherents. How do you explain followers of other religions with beliefs contradictory to those of Christianity? Are they suffering mass delusion?

What you are saying here sounds reasonable, and maybe it is true for you, but I have seen a lot of pretty dogmatic fundy atheists on the net. There is also a lot of anger, mockery and p!sstaking. I often wonder why? I mean are Christians really that threatening?

fundy atheist - oxymoron

Yep, I have seen some level of mockery by atheists and IMO it is non-productive in making an argument. However, Christians also become very precious when it comes to questioning the basis of their faith. For some reason it is often construed as rude or angry when an atheist questions the basis of a believer's faith.

Do you consider my questions angry, mocking or taking the *smile*? I have had a few discussion with Jay on this matter and I believe I may be direct, but I justify my questions and conclusions. He hasn't provided any evidence to the contrary.

I think you will find that lots of science is done in a similar way, by interpreting data along the lines of the ruling paradigm. I remember having an old Geology text with everything fitted into the 'Geosynclinal (pre-plate Tectonics)' paradigm of the time. Nowadays that has been done away with, and everything has a plate Tectonic interp. Now I agree that the Creationists have'nt been too successful in shifting the paradigm, but having a go isn't a crime. Everyone once thought Wegener was crazy too!

So the evidence suggested one explanation before a paradigm shift occurred due to the accumulation of new, contrary evidence? That is how science works!

You state in the beginning of this post that the basis of your belief is essentially non-scientific. So what are the observations that form the basis of your 'God hypothesis'? Why do you ignore contrary evidence? Why do you only present evidence that you feel fits your argument?

Anyway, I wondered if you would have a look over this article on the Bacterial flagellum. Its quite technical, but it seems to be arguing that the evolutionary pathways evolved AFTER the flagellum. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

How can an evolutionary pathway evolve?

That aside, the flagellum is a creationist whipping boy that has been done to death and has been thoroughly discredited. Google it and read some articles that explain why this molecular motor (or I should say motors) are in no way irreducibly complex. There is a good video on YouTube that summarises this.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Again you have no evidence whatsoever that God does not exist. but as I told my science teacher many years ago, when he was trying to promote that man evolved from monkeys - by looking at him it may actually be some remote evidence that in fact he did evolve from a monkey.

Have you even bothered to investigate the evidence supporting this position before dismissing it out of hand (in a ridiculing manner at that)?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Arguing the absence of something is nearly impossible, which is why much of this discussion goes around in circles. Both sides are trying to prove they are right by showing why the other argument may be wrong.

I have never said that there definitely is no God. I have often said that it would appear more likely that there is no God. If people want to believe in God, all power to them. However, when they start making claims about the natural world that are clearly false, then I will point out the contrary evidence.

Personally I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me that Dougie was wrong, and we are not part of a giant organic computer run by mice to determine the question to the answer of 42. Prove to me we are not a mice run experiment!! ;D

Adams...what a legend.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

it takes more faith than I have to believe in evolution as the beginning of things. so i suppose anything is possible if you believe in evolution

Ugh. As Disco points out, evolutionary theory is about how populations change over time, not how life began. If you don't even know that how can you presume to shoot your mouth off about the accuracy of the theory?

Abiogenesis describes the origin of life and there is evidence that has provided us with many insights into what early life on this planet looked like (in a biochemistry sort of way).

The difference between your faith and the scientific study of evolution is one thing: evidence.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

It was about 10 years ago, I came across his story and contacted him via email at Cambridge and had quite a good talk with him about a number of things. I dont recall his name but will see if I can find it for you.

I am very interested to hear how this goes.